[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/5] xfs: reclaim bug fixes

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] xfs: reclaim bug fixes
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:30:56 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100716052329.GF29915@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1279154300-2018-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100716052329.GF29915@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 01:23:29AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:38:15AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > The following patches fix excessive CPU consumption during inode
> > cache shrinking when filesystems have lots of allocation groups as
> > well as prevent a couple of lockdep reports that were found during
> > testing. Also included is a fix for a reclaim recursion deadlock
> > when allocating memory during inode initialisation.
> Wa the overlap of patch 1 with the for-2.6.35 shrinker series
> intentional?  In addition to patch 1 patches 3 to 5 are also for-2.6.35
> material in my opinion.

I realised that we'd get a messy, messy conflict if I separated the
per-ag tree reclaim tracking from the shrinker patchset, so I
included it in that one as it was also part of fixing reported
XFS shrinker regressions to avoid such conflicts.

But yes, i think that all the lockdep fixes are probably 2.6.35


Dave Chinner

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