xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 03/27] xfs: use write_cache_pages for writeback clustering

To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/27] xfs: use write_cache_pages for writeback clustering
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 11:15:09 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, jack@xxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110701145935.GB29530@xxxxxxx>
References: <20110629140109.003209430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110629140336.950805096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110701022248.GM561@dastard> <20110701041851.GN561@dastard> <20110701093305.GA28531@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110701145935.GB29530@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 03:59:35PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 05:33:05AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Johannes, Mel, Wu,
> 
> Am adding Jan Kara as he has been working on writeback efficiency
> recently as well.
> 
> > Dave has been stressing some XFS patches of mine that remove the XFS
> > internal writeback clustering in favour of using write_cache_pages.
> > 
> 
> Against what kernel? 2.6.38 was a disaster for reclaim I've been
> finding out this week. I don't know about 2.6.38.8. 2.6.39 was better.

The patch series is against current 3.0-rc, I assume that's what Dave
tested as well.

> I'm assuming "test 180" is from xfstests which was not one of the tests
> I used previously. To run with 1000 files instead of 100, was the file
> "180" simply editted to make it look like this loop instead?

Yes. to both questions.

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