lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fs/dcache.c: re-add cond_resched() in shrink_dcache_parent()
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 09:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But it does *not* make sense for the case where we've hit a dentry
> that is already on the shrink list. Sure, we'll continue to gather all
> the other dentries, but if there is concurrent shrinking, shouldn't we
> give up the CPU more eagerly - *particularly* if somebody else is
> waiting (it might be the other process that actually gets rid of the
> shrinking dentries!)?
>
> So my gut feel is that we should at least try doing something like
> this in select_collect():
>
> - if (!list_empty(&data->dispose))
> + if (data->found)
> ret = need_resched() ? D_WALK_QUIT : D_WALK_NORETRY;
>
> because even if we haven't actually been able to shrink something, if
> we hit an already shrinking entry we should probably at least not do
> the "retry for rename". And if we actually are going to reschedule, we
> might as well start from the beginning.
>
> I realize that *this* thread might not be making any actual progress
> (because it didn't find any dentries to shrink), but since it did find
> _a_ dentry that is being shrunk, we know the operation itself - on a
> bigger scale - is making progress.
>
> Hmm?

That breaks d_invalidate(), unfortunately. Look at the termination
conditions in the loop there...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-14 22:59    [W:0.094 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site