Vasily Averin <[email protected]> wrote:
> # If prune_dcache finds a dentry that it cannot free, it leaves it where it
> # is (at the tail of the list) and exits, on the assumption that some other
> # thread will be removing that dentry soon.
>
> However as far as I see this comment is not correct: when we cannot take
> s_umount rw_semaphore (for example because it was taken in do_remount) this
> dentry is already extracted from dentry_unused list and we do not add it into
> the list again.
You would seem to be correct.
> Therefore dentry will not be found by prune_dcache() and shrink_dcache_sb()
> and will leave in memory very long time until the partition will be
> unmounted.
And here too:-/
> Am I probably err?
Unfortunately not. I wonder if remount should be getting a writelock on the
s_umount sem, but I don't see why not. grab_super() also gets a writelock on
it, and so that could cause problems too.
shrink_dcache_for_umount_subtree() doesn't care because it doesn't scan the
dcache_unused list, but as you say, other things are affected.
> The patch adds this dentry into tail of the dentry_unused list.
I think that's reasonable. I wonder if we can avoid removing it from the list
in the first place, but I suspect it's less optimal.
Acked-By: David Howells <[email protected]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
