On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:18:03PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:00:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > - d_lru_shrink_move: move from the "global" lru list to a private
> > > shrinker list
> > > - d_shrink_add/del: fairly obvious.
> > >
> > > And then "denty_lru_add/del" that actually take the current state into
> > > account and do the right thing. Those we had before, I'm just
> > > explaining the difference from the low-level operations that have
> > > fixed "from this state to that" semantics
> >
> > Looks sane; FWIW, the variant I'm playing with uses two independent
> > flags for "shrinker" and "per-sb", but AFAICS that doesn't yield better
> > code.
>
> Actually, it does yield slightly better code... Look - if you take your
> patch and replace LRU_LIST | SHRINK_LIST combination with bare SHRINK_LIST
> (which can't occur right now). Then all transitions turn into flipping
^^^
> a single bit,
Obviously not *and* lru->shrink is common ;-/ Anyway, any benefit from
microoptimizing that will drown in noise, so... nevermind that idea.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
