On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Marcin Kowalski wrote:
> Hi
>
> Regarding the patch ....
>
> I don't have experience with the linux kernel internals but could this patch
> not lead to a run-loop condition as the only thing that can break our of the
> for(;;) loop is the tmp==&dentry_unused statement. So if the required number
> of dentries does not exist and this condition is not satisfied we would have
> an infinate loop... sorry if this is a silly question.
Nope. Notice that "warned" dentries are not killed, but they are returned
to the list. If we meet them again - they are goners.
More formally, on each iteration you either decrement count or you
decrement the number of dentries that have DCACHE_REFERENCED. count
can't grow at all. Number of dentries with DCACHE_REFERENCED can't grow
unless you release dcache_lock, which happens only in the branch that
decrements count. I.e. loop does terminate.
> Also the comment >/* If the dentry was recently referenced, don't free it.
> */<, the code inside is excuted if the DCACHE_REFERENCED flags are set and in
> the code is is reversing the DCACHE_REFERENCED flag on the dentry and adding
> it to the dentry_unsed list??? So a Refrenched entry is set Not Referenced
> and place in the unsed list?? I am unclear about that... is the comment
> correct or is my understanding lacking (which is very probable :-))..
"referenced" as in "had been found by d_lookup, don't shoot me at sight".
When prune_dcache() picks it up it moves the thing on the other end of list
and removes the mark. Caught twice - too bad, it will be freed.
Al
-
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/
