Commit 6eac3f93f5e6b7256fb20b7608d62ec192da12be
Committed by
Linus Torvalds
1 parent
ebed4bfc8d
Exists in
master
and in
7 other branches
[PATCH] missing unused dentry in prune_dcache()?
On the the following patch: http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/gnupatch@449b144ecSF1rYskg3q-SeR2vf88zg # ChangeSet # 2006/06/22 15:05:57-07:00 neilb@suse.de # [PATCH] Fix dcache race during umount # If prune_dcache finds a dentry that it cannot free, it leaves it where it # is (at the tail of the list) and exits, on the assumption that some other # thread will be removing that dentry soon. However as far as I see this comment is not correct: when we cannot take s_umount rw_semaphore (for example because it was taken in do_remount) this dentry is already extracted from dentry_unused list and we do not add it into the list again. Therefore dentry will not be found by prune_dcache() and shrink_dcache_sb() and will leave in memory very long time until the partition will be unmounted. The patch adds this dentry into tail of the dentry_unused list. Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@sw.ru> Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Showing 1 changed file with 5 additions and 4 deletions Side-by-side Diff
fs/dcache.c
... | ... | @@ -478,11 +478,12 @@ |
478 | 478 | up_read(s_umount); |
479 | 479 | } |
480 | 480 | spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock); |
481 | - /* Cannot remove the first dentry, and it isn't appropriate | |
482 | - * to move it to the head of the list, so give up, and try | |
483 | - * later | |
481 | + /* | |
482 | + * Insert dentry at the head of the list as inserting at the | |
483 | + * tail leads to a cycle. | |
484 | 484 | */ |
485 | - break; | |
485 | + list_add(&dentry->d_lru, &dentry_unused); | |
486 | + dentry_stat.nr_unused++; | |
486 | 487 | } |
487 | 488 | spin_unlock(&dcache_lock); |
488 | 489 | } |