inode highmem imbalance fix [Re: Bug with shared memory.]

[Denis Lunev <den@asplinux.ru>]

[-- Attachment #1: message body text --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 146 bytes --]

Hello!

The patch itself cures my problems, but after a small fix concerning
uninitialized variable resulting in OOPS.

Regards,
	Denis V. Lunev


[-- Attachment #2: diff-andrea-inodes2 --]
[-- Type: text, Size: 246 bytes --]

--- linux/fs/inode.c.old	Wed May 29 20:16:17 2002
+++ linux/fs/inode.c	Wed May 29 20:17:08 2002
@@ -669,6 +669,7 @@
 	struct inode * inode;
 
 	count = pass = 0;
+	entry = &inode_unused;
 
 	spin_lock(&inode_lock);
 	while (goal && pass++ < 2) {

[-- Attachment #3: message body text --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1400 bytes --]



Andrea Arcangeli writes:
 > On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 06:30:40AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
 > > As next thing I'll go ahead on the inode/highmem imbalance repored by
 > > Alexey in the weekend.  Then the only pending thing before next -aa is
 > 
 > Here it is, you should apply it together with vm-35 that you need too
 > for the bh/highmem balance (or on top of 2.4.19pre8aa3). I tested it
 > slightly on uml and it didn't broke so far, so be careful because it's not
 > very well tested yet. On the lines of what Alexey suggested originally,
 > if goal isn't reached, in a second pass we shrink the cache too, but
 > only if the cache is the only reason for the "pinning" beahiour of the
 > inode. If for example there are dirty blocks of metadata or of data
 > belonging to the inode we wakeup_bdflush instead and we never shrink the
 > cache in such case. If the inode itself is dirty as well we let the two
 > passes fail so we will schedule the work for keventd. This logic should
 > ensure we never fall into shrinking the cache for no good reason and
 > that we free the cache only for the inodes that we actually go ahead and
 > free. (basically only dirty pages set with SetPageDirty aren't trapped
 > by the logic before calling the invalidate, like ramfs, but that's
 > expected of course, those pages cannot be damaged by the non destructive
 > invalidate anyways)
 > 
 > Comments?