Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:58:12 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Query on shrink list
Message-ID: <20180817125812.GC6515@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <301a5546-d326-d78e-3be6-41b5a6a08c0e@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <301a5546-d326-d78e-3be6-41b5a6a08c0e@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 03:39:22PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Hi Al Viro,
> 
> Is there is reason we have kept data->found++, if the dentry already there
> in shrink list ?
> 
> static enum d_walk_ret select_collect(
> ...
> ??????? if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST) {
> ??????????????? data->found++;
> ??????? } else {
> ? ..
> 
> If the dentry is already there on shrink list, does it not mean that
> data->found is already non-zero ?

Nope.  It can be on *another* shrink list - if two processes are doing
that...

> Can't we just go out from here directly?