On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:35:20AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index b931415..79bf47c 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c

@@ -269,10 +269,10 @@ static void dentry_lru_move_list(struct dentry *dentry, struct list_head *list)
 	spin_lock(&dentry->d_sb->s_dentry_lru_lock);
 	if (list_empty(&dentry->d_lru)) {
 		list_add_tail(&dentry->d_lru, list);
-		dentry->d_sb->s_nr_dentry_unused++;
-		this_cpu_inc(nr_dentry_unused);
 	} else {
 		list_move_tail(&dentry->d_lru, list);
+		dentry->d_sb->s_nr_dentry_unused--;
+		this_cpu_dec(nr_dentry_unused);
 	}
 	spin_unlock(&dentry->d_sb->s_dentry_lru_lock);

I suspect at this point it might be more obvious to simply remove
dentry_lru_move_list.  Just call dentry_lru_del to remove it from the
lru, and then we can add it to the local dispose list without the need
of any locking, similar to how it is done for inodes already.

Yeah, that is what is done in the next patch when converting to the
generic LRU list code. I can probably pull this back into this patch
and just remove dentry_lru_move_list(0 right here.

quoted

 		if (dentry->d_count) {
-			dentry_lru_del(dentry);
 			spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
 			continue;
 		}

@@ -789,6 +794,8 @@ relock:
 			spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
 		} else {
 			list_move_tail(&dentry->d_lru, &tmp);
+			this_cpu_dec(nr_dentry_unused);
+			sb->s_nr_dentry_unused--;

It might be more obvious to use __dentry_lru_del + an opencoded list_add
here.

This goes away completely in the next patch, so I don't think it
matters that much...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>