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 <vben...@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfos...@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.w...@oracle.com>

Looks ok, tests ok...
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.w...@oracle.com>

--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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to