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

[Denis Lunev]

--W/UJq3YPYn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Description: message body text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello!

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

Regards,
	Denis V. Lunev

--W/UJq3YPYn
Content-Type: text
Content-Description: diff-andrea-inodes2
Content-Disposition: inline;
	filename="diff-andrea-inodes2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

LS0tIGxpbnV4L2ZzL2lub2RlLmMub2xkCVdlZCBNYXkgMjkgMjA6MTY6MTcgMjAwMgorKysg
bGludXgvZnMvaW5vZGUuYwlXZWQgTWF5IDI5IDIwOjE3OjA4IDIwMDIKQEAgLTY2OSw2ICs2
NjksNyBAQAogCXN0cnVjdCBpbm9kZSAqIGlub2RlOwogCiAJY291bnQgPSBwYXNzID0gMDsK
KwllbnRyeSA9ICZpbm9kZV91bnVzZWQ7CiAKIAlzcGluX2xvY2soJmlub2RlX2xvY2spOwog
CXdoaWxlIChnb2FsICYmIHBhc3MrKyA8IDIpIHsK
--W/UJq3YPYn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Description: message body text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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?

--W/UJq3YPYn--