On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 11:26:38AM +0100, Vratislav Bendel wrote: > Due to an inverted logic mistake in xfs_buftarg_isolate() > the xfs_buffers with zero b_lru_ref will take another trip > around LRU, while isolating buffers with non-zero b_lru_ref. > > Additionally those isolated buffers end up right back on the LRU > once they are released, because b_lru_ref remains elevated. > > Fix that circuitous route by leaving them on the LRU > as originally intended. > > Signed-off-by: Vratislav Bendel <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <[email protected]>
Looks ok, tests ok... Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <[email protected]> --D > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > index d1da2ee9e6db..ac669a10c62f 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > @@ -1708,7 +1708,7 @@ xfs_buftarg_isolate( > * zero. If the value is already zero, we need to reclaim the > * buffer, otherwise it gets another trip through the LRU. > */ > - if (!atomic_add_unless(&bp->b_lru_ref, -1, 0)) { > + if (atomic_add_unless(&bp->b_lru_ref, -1, 0)) { > spin_unlock(&bp->b_lock); > return LRU_ROTATE; > } > -- > 2.14.3 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
