Re: SLUB defrag pull request?

[Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> In many cases, yes it seems to. And some of the approaches even if
> they work now seem like they *might* cause problematic constraints
> in the design... Have Al and Christoph reviewed the dentry and inode
> patches?

This d_invalidate() looks suspicious to me:

+/*
+ * Slab has dropped all the locks. Get rid of the refcount obtained
+ * earlier and also free the object.
+ */
+static void kick_dentries(struct kmem_cache *s,
+                               int nr, void **v, void *private)
+{
+       struct dentry *dentry;
+       int i;
+
+       /*
+        * First invalidate the dentries without holding the dcache lock
+        */
+       for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
+               dentry = v[i];
+
+               if (dentry)
+                       d_invalidate(dentry);
+       }

I think it's wrong to unhash dentries while they are possibly still
being used.  You can do the shrink_dcache_parent() here, but should
leave the unhashing to be done by prune_one_dentry(), after it's been
checked that there are no other users of the dentry.

Miklos

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>