xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 09/19] list_lru: per-node list infrastructure

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/19] list_lru: per-node list infrastructure
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:14:10 -0800
Cc: <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130118001029.GK2498@dastard>
References: <1354058086-27937-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1354058086-27937-10-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <50F6FDC8.5020909@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130116225521.GF2498@dastard> <50F7475F.90609@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130117042245.GG2498@dastard> <50F84118.7030608@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130118001029.GK2498@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
On 01/17/2013 04:10 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> And then each object uses:
> 
> struct lru_item {
>       struct list_head global_list;
>       struct list_head memcg_list;
> }
by objects you mean dentries, inodes, and the such, right?
Would it be acceptable to you?

We've been of course doing our best to avoid increasing the size of the
objects, therefore this is something we've never mentioned. However, if
it would be acceptable from the fs POV, this would undoubtedly make our
life extremely easier.

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