On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:56 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Before we introduce per-buftarg LRU lists, split the shrinker
> implementation into per-buftarg shrinker callbacks. At the moment
> we wake all the xfsbufds to run the delayed write queues to free
> the dirty buffers and make their pages available for reclaim.
> However, with an LRU, we want to be able to free clean, unused
> buffers as well, so we need to separate the xfsbufd from the
> shrinker callbacks.
I have one comment/question embedded below.
Your new shrinker is better than the old one (and would
have been even if you didn't make them per-buftarg).
It doesn't initiate flushing when it's passed 0 for
nr_to_scan (though to be honest I'm not sure what
practical effect that will have).
In any case...
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c | 89
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.h | 4 +-
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c
> index cce427d..3b54fee 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c
. . .
> @@ -337,7 +332,6 @@ _xfs_buf_lookup_pages(
> __func__, gfp_mask);
> - xfsbufd_wakeup(NULL, 0, gfp_mask);
Why is it OK not to wake up the shrinker(s) here
now, when it was called for previously?
> congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
> goto retry;
. . .