Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:54:17 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [CFT][PATCH] Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cache |
| |
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Marcin Kowalski wrote:
> Hi > > Regarding the patch .... > > I don't have experience with the linux kernel internals but could this patch > not lead to a run-loop condition as the only thing that can break our of the > for(;;) loop is the tmp==&dentry_unused statement. So if the required number > of dentries does not exist and this condition is not satisfied we would have > an infinate loop... sorry if this is a silly question.
Nope. Notice that "warned" dentries are not killed, but they are returned to the list. If we meet them again - they are goners.
More formally, on each iteration you either decrement count or you decrement the number of dentries that have DCACHE_REFERENCED. count can't grow at all. Number of dentries with DCACHE_REFERENCED can't grow unless you release dcache_lock, which happens only in the branch that decrements count. I.e. loop does terminate.
> Also the comment >/* If the dentry was recently referenced, don't free it. > */<, the code inside is excuted if the DCACHE_REFERENCED flags are set and in > the code is is reversing the DCACHE_REFERENCED flag on the dentry and adding > it to the dentry_unsed list??? So a Refrenched entry is set Not Referenced > and place in the unsed list?? I am unclear about that... is the comment > correct or is my understanding lacking (which is very probable :-))..
"referenced" as in "had been found by d_lookup, don't shoot me at sight". When prune_dcache() picks it up it moves the thing on the other end of list and removes the mark. Caught twice - too bad, it will be freed. Al
- 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/
| |