From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailgw1.hygon.cn (unknown [101.204.27.37]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8FA4446FA; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:59:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=101.204.27.37 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789387177; cv=none; b=ixYlSotIwjjK87Tt/WkIQroJEu00Yg8HJiCyAJGcSnliZ1eUsyLny0QDeKGVyREW65tzNVgkDqOHJ7agjm+TZYo6Sfq7FVZMNp2iyPhjmm3bKezY1KIEcg9okHqiakmA0IT7V5wiWRbBFcwHBu9Bvb5i8jpkxr9xs46qnlEXcBs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789387177; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XCEm4VSKifRlh9YCHcSm49/zokBe7ru/yLFTrk8i3jU=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=HOzV+DD8QgiLIWER8Y2KS662cW6noP2Xuse6HTtaxk8GKDZqiHkkBobbzmvig1BbQEUW2/xFXNGa9uRtzAEc8FVdsfZfDCxc2kIrbBNcBe0B0bCL2JNExCt71jVCrkBvPXkv00qAdLSR96r1nh/YnYY7RSzulh8aJVx66lA4elo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=hygon.cn; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=hygon.cn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=101.204.27.37 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=hygon.cn Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=hygon.cn Received: from maildlp2.hygon.cn (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw1.hygon.cn (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4hk3bL5Ngdz2CZr9; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 19:59:10 +0800 (CST) Received: from maildlp2.hygon.cn (unknown [172.23.18.61]) by mailgw1.hygon.cn (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4hk3bH6zwdz2CZr7; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 19:59:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from cncheex04.Hygon.cn (unknown [172.23.18.114]) by maildlp2.hygon.cn (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98C8933C2BD2; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 19:54:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from hsj-2U-Workstation (172.19.24.226) by cncheex04.Hygon.cn (172.23.18.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.36; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 19:59:06 +0800 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 19:59:04 +0800 From: Huang Shijie To: Alexey Dobriyan CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] fs/drop_caches: do not scan procfs in drop_pagecache_sb() Message-ID: References: <20260914061449.4024632-1-huangsj@hygon.cn> <20260914061449.4024632-2-huangsj@hygon.cn> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: cncheex06.Hygon.cn (172.23.18.116) To cncheex04.Hygon.cn (172.23.18.114) On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 12:19:03PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 02:14:47PM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > > There is no page cache for the procfs, so do not scan the > > inodes in procfs. > > > @@ -20,6 +21,9 @@ static void drop_pagecache_sb(struct super_block *sb, void *unused) > > { > > struct inode *inode, *toput_inode = NULL; > > > > + if (sb->s_magic == PROC_SUPER_MAGIC) > > + return; > > This should be some flag somewhere in superblock. > Other fake filesystems don't support pagecache too. yes. It seems it is better to check like this: if (sb->s_bdi == &noop_backing_dev_inf) return;