[PATCH 1/5] inode: Make unused inode LRU per superblock

Andrew Morton akpm at linux-foundation.org
Thu May 27 15:32:30 CDT 2010


On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:53:04 +1000
Dave Chinner <david at fromorbit.com> wrote:

> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner at redhat.com>
> 
> The inode unused list is currently a global LRU. This does not match
> the other global filesystem cache - the dentry cache - which uses
> per-superblock LRU lists. Hence we have related filesystem object
> types using different LRU reclaimatin schemes.
> 
> To enable a per-superblock filesystem cache shrinker, both of these
> caches need to have per-sb unused object LRU lists. Hence this patch
> converts the global inode LRU to per-sb LRUs.
> 
> The patch only does rudimentary per-sb propotioning in the shrinker
> infrastructure, as this gets removed when the per-sb shrinker
> callouts are introduced later on.
> 
> ...
>
> +			list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode->i_sb->s_inode_lru);

It's a shape that s_inode_lru is still protected by inode_lock.  One
day we're going to get in trouble over that lock.  Migrating to a
per-sb lock would be logical and might help.

Did you look into this?  I expect we'd end up taking both inode_lock
and the new sb->lru_lock in several places, which wouldn't be of any
help, at least in the interim.  Long-term, the locking for
fs-writeback.c should move to the per-superblock one also, at which
time this problem largely goes away I think.  Unfortunately the
writeback inode lists got moved into the backing_dev_info, whcih messes
things up a bit.

>  	inodes_stat.nr_unused--;
> +	inode->i_sb->s_nr_inodes_unused--;

It's regrettable to be counting the same thing twice.  Did you look
into removing (or no longer using) inodes_stat.nr_unused?


> +		/* Now, we reclaim unused dentrins with fairness.

May as well fix the typo while we're there.

Please review all these comments to ensure that they are still accurate
and complete.




More information about the xfs mailing list