Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:07:13 -0800 | From | Mike Waychison <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/8] Deferred batching of dput() |
| |
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > Hi Mike. > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 06:29:42PM -0800, Mike Waychison (mikew@google.com) wrote: >> +static void postpone_dput(struct dentry *dentry) >> +{ >> + struct postponed_dentries *ppd, *new_ppd; >> + >> +again: >> + ppd = get_cpu_var(postponed_dentries); >> + if (!pending_dput_full(ppd)) { >> + add_pending_dput(ppd, dentry); >> + put_cpu_var(postponed_dentries); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + /* need to flush out existing pending dentries. */ >> + put_cpu_var(postponed_dentries); >> + /* Allocate more space.. */ >> + new_ppd = new_postponed_dentries(); >> + if (!new_ppd) { >> + /* Take the slow path, memory is low */ >> + struct postponed_dentries_onstack ppd_onstack; >> + struct postponed_dentries *ppd; >> + >> + ppd = init_ppd_onstack(&ppd_onstack); >> + add_pending_dput(ppd, dentry); >> + process_postponed_dentries(ppd); >> + return; >> + } > > Why don't you want just to put the dentry in the lowmem condition? >
You're right. This path could just use the original dput path. I'll fix it up in the next version.
| |