| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: reclaim all inodes by background tree walks |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:24:08 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1262819125-27083-3-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1262819125-27083-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1262819125-27083-3-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
Looks safe to me. I wonder whaimpact leaving the inodes around for longer has to memory usage for inode heavy workloads, though. > unlock_and_requeue: > + /* > + * We could return EAGAIN here to make reclaim rescan the inode tree in > + * a short while. However, this just burns CPU time scanning the tree > + * waiting for IO to complete and xfssyncd never goes back to the idle > + * state. Instead, return 0 to let the next scheduled background reclaim > + * attempt to reclaim the inode again. > + */ > xfs_iflags_clear(ip, XFS_IRECLAIM); > xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); > - return EAGAIN; > + return 0; This is an unrelated change and should be a patch of it's own. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: reclaim inodes under a write lock, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: Use delayed write for inodes rather than async, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 2/2] xfs: reclaim all inodes by background tree walks, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: reclaim all inodes by background tree walks, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |