xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:41:04 +1000
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100702121304.GA10075@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1274777588-21494-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100702121304.GA10075@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Did you plan to resubmit this with the few review comments addressed?
> I'd really hate to not see this in 2.6.36.

I've been doing some more testing on it, and while I can get a 25%
reduction in the time to create and remove 10 million inodes with
per-sb shrinker, I can't get the reclaim pattern stable enough for
my liking.

At this point in the cycle, I'd much prefer just to go with adding a
context to the shrinker API to fix the XFS locking issues (i.e.  the
original patches I sent) and spend a bit more time working out which
combination of Nick's and my bits that improves reclaim speed whilst
retaining the stability of the courrent code....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>