lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] prune_icache_sb
    Andrew Morton wrote:
    > This search is potentially inefficient. It would be better walk
    > sb->s_inodes.
    >
    >
    Not sure about walking thru sb->s_inodes for several reasons....

    1. First, the changes made are mostly for file server setup with large
    fs size - the entry count in sb->s_inodes may not be shorter then
    inode_unused list.
    2. Different from calls such as drop_pagecache_sb() (that doesn't do
    list entry removal), we're walking thru the list to dispose the entries.
    This implies we are walking thru one list (sb->s_inodes) to remove the
    other list's entries (inode_unused). This feels awkward.
    3. The new code will be very similar to current prune_icache() with few
    differences - e.g., we really don't want to list_move() within the
    sb->s_inodes list itself (as done in prune_icache() that moves the
    examined entry to the tail of the inode_unused list). We have to either
    duplicate the code or clutter the current prune_icache() routine.

    Pruning based on sb->s_inodes *does* have its advantage but a simple and
    plain patch as shown in previous post (that has been well-tested out in
    two large scale production systems) could be equally effective. Make
    sense ?

    -- Wendy

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-28 01:05    [W:2.325 / U:0.776 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site