From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3B63D3DEA2 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:18:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836993C6AD0 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:18:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F6143C1A39 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:18:06 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-7.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.131; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B06AB2A7C0C for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:18:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB8851FF15; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78DB913433; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id JoMOHEyYEmdeZQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:18:04 +0000 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:18:02 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Jan Kara Message-ID: <20241018171802.GA333901@pevik> References: <20241018071353.2732203-1-wozizhi@huawei.com> <20241018115224.jsz3rrnqpx5mwhze@quack3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241018115224.jsz3rrnqpx5mwhze@quack3> X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AB8851FF15 X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-7.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fanotify10: Calling drop_cache three times to ensure the inode is evicted X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: yangerkun@huawei.com, ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Jan, Zizhi Wo, ... > > NUMA0: parent inode exist exist free > > NUMA1: parent dentry exist free free > > NUMA2: child inode exist free free > > NUMA3: child dentry free free free > Well, this is right but there's also the while ((freed >> shift++) > 1) > loop in drop_slab() which should generally make us loop as long as there's > something to reclaim. But yes, if in theory the only thing we can reclaim > is the child dentry in the first round, then what you suggest may happen. > > Due to the release of the dependency chain, the drop_cache cleanup also > > takes several times. Therefore, to be safe, three drop_cache operations are > > needed to handle the two-level directory structure. > OK, I'm willing to give this one last try. If it doesn't work out, I'd just > drop these tests until we can find a more reliable way of testing this. > Feel free to add: > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara Thanks you both for yet another fix and review, both is very much appreciated. Hopefully this will finally work. Kind regards, Petr > Honza ... -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp