From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f71.google.com (mail-wm0-f71.google.com [74.125.82.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07666B02F4 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 07:34:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f71.google.com with SMTP id k15so9387814wmh.3 for ; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 04:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j133si2279254wma.78.2017.06.01.04.34.39 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Jun 2017 04:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:34:34 +0200 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/35] fscache: Remove unused ->now_uncached callback Message-ID: <20170601113434.GC23077@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20170601093245.29238-2-jack@suse.cz> <20170601093245.29238-1-jack@suse.cz> <10376.1496312768@warthog.procyon.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10376.1496312768@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Howells Cc: Jan Kara , linux-mm@kvack.org, Hugh Dickins , linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, Ryusuke Konishi , linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org, Bob Peterson , cluster-devel@redhat.com, Jaegeuk Kim , linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Ilya Dryomov , "Yan, Zheng" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, David Sterba , "Darrick J . Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Nadia Yvette Chambers On Thu 01-06-17 11:26:08, David Howells wrote: > Jan Kara wrote: > > > The callback doesn't ever get called. Remove it. > > Hmmm... I should perhaps be calling this. I'm not sure why I never did. > > At the moment, it doesn't strictly matter as ops on pages marked with > PG_fscache get ignored if the cache has suffered an I/O error or has been > withdrawn - but it will incur a performance penalty (the PG_fscache flag is > checked in the netfs before calling into fscache). > > The downside of calling this is that when a cache is removed, fscache would go > through all the cookies for that cache and iterate over all the pages > associated with those cookies - which could cause a performance dip in the > system. So I know nothing about fscache. If you decide these functions should stay in as you are going to use them soon, then I can just convert them to the new API as everything else. What just caught my eye and why I had a more detailed look is that I didn't understand that 'PAGEVEC_SIZE - pagevec_count(&pvec)' as a pagevec_lookup() argument since pagevec_count() should always return 0 at that point? Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org