| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 6/7] libxfs: keep unflushable buffers off the cache MRUs |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:06:36 -0800 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1454627108-19036-7-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1454627108-19036-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1454627108-19036-7-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) |
> --- a/include/cache.h
> +++ b/include/cache.h
> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ enum {
> #define CACHE_BASE_PRIORITY 0
> #define CACHE_PREFETCH_PRIORITY 8
> #define CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY 15
> +#define CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY (CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY + 1)
Sizing arrays based on, and iterating up to CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY seems
rather odd. Maybe add a new
#define CACHE_NR_PRIORITIES CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY
and a comment explaining the magic to make it more obvious?
> +cache_move_to_dirty_mru(
> + struct cache *cache,
> + struct cache_node *node)
> +{
> + struct cache_mru *mru;
> +
> + mru = &cache->c_mrus[CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY];
> +
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&mru->cm_mutex);
> + node->cn_priority = CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY;
> + list_move(&node->cn_mru, &mru->cm_list);
> + mru->cm_count++;
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&mru->cm_mutex);
> +}
Maybe it would better to just do a list_add here and leave the
list_del to the caller to avoid needing to nest two different
cm_mutex instances.
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH v8 6/9] dax: add support for fsync/msync, Jan Kara |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 7/7] libxfs: reset dirty buffer priority on lookup, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 6/7] libxfs: keep unflushable buffers off the cache MRUs, Brian Foster |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 6/7] libxfs: keep unflushable buffers off the cache MRUs, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |