Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934064AbaD2SRO (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:17:14 -0400 Received: from mail-ve0-f169.google.com ([209.85.128.169]:50491 "EHLO mail-ve0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933612AbaD2SRN (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:17:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20140429160139.GA3113@tucsk.piliscsaba.szeredi.hu> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:17:12 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1ibD8zTV7tMY4PGrfOzbuvOypZU Message-ID: Subject: Re: dcache shrink list corruption? From: Linus Torvalds To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: Al Viro , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Because we no longer have that. It now uses the list_lru thing, with > a "per-node" lock, whatever that one is. Oh, yes. Right you are. I just started looking at that and went "ugh". The lru lists are all distributed now with multiple locks (well, one per list node). > Another idea, which could have subtler effects, is simply not to kill > a dentry that is on the shrink list (indicated by > DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST), since it's bound to get killed anyway. But > that's a change in behaviour... Ooh, I like the way you think. I don't see why this wouldn't be the right approach. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/