From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:42:06 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1275032526.15516.83.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527133223.efa4740a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 13:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:53:03 +1000
> Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> > This series reworks the filesystem shrinkers. We currently have a
> > set of issues with the current filesystem shrinkers:
> >
> > 1. There is an dependency between dentry and inode cache
> > shrinking that is only implicitly defined by the order of
> > shrinker registration.
> > 2. The shrinkers need to walk the superblock list and pin
> > the superblock to avoid unmount races with the sb going
> > away.
> > 3. The dentry cache uses per-superblock LRUs and proportions
> > reclaim between all the superblocks which means we are
> > doing breadth based reclaim. This means we touch every
> > superblock for every shrinker call, and may only reclaim
> > a single dentry at a time from a given superblock.
> > 4. The inode cache has a global LRU, so it has different
> > reclaim patterns to the dentry cache, despite the fact
> > that the dentry cache is generally the only thing that
> > pins inodes in memory.
> > 5. Filesystems need to register their own shrinkers for
> > caches and can't co-ordinate them with the dentry and
> > inode cache shrinkers.
>
> Nice description, but... it never actually told us what the benefit of
> the changes are. Presumably some undescribed workload had some
> undescribed user-visible problem. But what was that workload, and what
> was the user-visible problem, and how does the patch affect all this?
For UBIFS it wwill give a benefit in terms of simpler UBIFS code - we
now have to keep our own list of UBIFS superblocks, provide locking for
it, and maintain. This is just extra burden. So the item 2 above will be
useful for UBIFS.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:42:06 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1275032526.15516.83.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527133223.efa4740a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 13:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:53:03 +1000
> Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> > This series reworks the filesystem shrinkers. We currently have a
> > set of issues with the current filesystem shrinkers:
> >
> > 1. There is an dependency between dentry and inode cache
> > shrinking that is only implicitly defined by the order of
> > shrinker registration.
> > 2. The shrinkers need to walk the superblock list and pin
> > the superblock to avoid unmount races with the sb going
> > away.
> > 3. The dentry cache uses per-superblock LRUs and proportions
> > reclaim between all the superblocks which means we are
> > doing breadth based reclaim. This means we touch every
> > superblock for every shrinker call, and may only reclaim
> > a single dentry at a time from a given superblock.
> > 4. The inode cache has a global LRU, so it has different
> > reclaim patterns to the dentry cache, despite the fact
> > that the dentry cache is generally the only thing that
> > pins inodes in memory.
> > 5. Filesystems need to register their own shrinkers for
> > caches and can't co-ordinate them with the dentry and
> > inode cache shrinkers.
>
> Nice description, but... it never actually told us what the benefit of
> the changes are. Presumably some undescribed workload had some
> undescribed user-visible problem. But what was that workload, and what
> was the user-visible problem, and how does the patch affect all this?
For UBIFS it wwill give a benefit in terms of simpler UBIFS code - we
now have to keep our own list of UBIFS superblocks, provide locking for
it, and maintain. This is just extra burden. So the item 2 above will be
useful for UBIFS.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:42:06 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1275032526.15516.83.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527133223.efa4740a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 13:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:53:03 +1000
> Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> > This series reworks the filesystem shrinkers. We currently have a
> > set of issues with the current filesystem shrinkers:
> >
> > 1. There is an dependency between dentry and inode cache
> > shrinking that is only implicitly defined by the order of
> > shrinker registration.
> > 2. The shrinkers need to walk the superblock list and pin
> > the superblock to avoid unmount races with the sb going
> > away.
> > 3. The dentry cache uses per-superblock LRUs and proportions
> > reclaim between all the superblocks which means we are
> > doing breadth based reclaim. This means we touch every
> > superblock for every shrinker call, and may only reclaim
> > a single dentry at a time from a given superblock.
> > 4. The inode cache has a global LRU, so it has different
> > reclaim patterns to the dentry cache, despite the fact
> > that the dentry cache is generally the only thing that
> > pins inodes in memory.
> > 5. Filesystems need to register their own shrinkers for
> > caches and can't co-ordinate them with the dentry and
> > inode cache shrinkers.
>
> Nice description, but... it never actually told us what the benefit of
> the changes are. Presumably some undescribed workload had some
> undescribed user-visible problem. But what was that workload, and what
> was the user-visible problem, and how does the patch affect all this?
For UBIFS it wwill give a benefit in terms of simpler UBIFS code - we
now have to keep our own list of UBIFS superblocks, provide locking for
it, and maintain. This is just extra burden. So the item 2 above will be
useful for UBIFS.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:42:06 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1275032526.15516.83.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527133223.efa4740a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 13:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:53:03 +1000
> Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> > This series reworks the filesystem shrinkers. We currently have a
> > set of issues with the current filesystem shrinkers:
> >
> > 1. There is an dependency between dentry and inode cache
> > shrinking that is only implicitly defined by the order of
> > shrinker registration.
> > 2. The shrinkers need to walk the superblock list and pin
> > the superblock to avoid unmount races with the sb going
> > away.
> > 3. The dentry cache uses per-superblock LRUs and proportions
> > reclaim between all the superblocks which means we are
> > doing breadth based reclaim. This means we touch every
> > superblock for every shrinker call, and may only reclaim
> > a single dentry at a time from a given superblock.
> > 4. The inode cache has a global LRU, so it has different
> > reclaim patterns to the dentry cache, despite the fact
> > that the dentry cache is generally the only thing that
> > pins inodes in memory.
> > 5. Filesystems need to register their own shrinkers for
> > caches and can't co-ordinate them with the dentry and
> > inode cache shrinkers.
>
> Nice description, but... it never actually told us what the benefit of
> the changes are. Presumably some undescribed workload had some
> undescribed user-visible problem. But what was that workload, and what
> was the user-visible problem, and how does the patch affect all this?
For UBIFS it wwill give a benefit in terms of simpler UBIFS code - we
now have to keep our own list of UBIFS superblocks, provide locking for
it, and maintain. This is just extra burden. So the item 2 above will be
useful for UBIFS.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (D?N?N?N?D 1/4 D?D,N?N?N?DoD,D1)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-28 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 129+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-25 8:53 [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2 Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` [PATCH 1/5] inode: Make unused inode LRU per superblock Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 16:17 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 16:17 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 16:17 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 23:01 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 23:01 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 23:01 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 23:01 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 2:04 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 2:04 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 2:04 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 2:04 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 4:02 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 4:02 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 4:02 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 4:02 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 4:23 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 4:23 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 4:23 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 4:23 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 22:54 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 22:54 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 22:54 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-28 10:07 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-28 10:07 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-28 10:07 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-25 8:53 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: add context argument to shrinker callback Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` [PATCH 3/5] superblock: introduce per-sb cache shrinker infrastructure Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 16:41 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 16:41 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 16:41 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 16:41 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 1:53 ` [PATCH 3/5 v2] " Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 1:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 1:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 4:01 ` Al Viro
2010-05-27 4:01 ` Al Viro
2010-05-27 4:01 ` Al Viro
2010-05-27 6:17 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 6:17 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 6:17 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 6:46 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 6:46 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 6:46 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 2:19 ` [PATCH 3/5] " Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 2:19 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 2:19 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 2:19 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 4:07 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 4:07 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 4:07 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 4:24 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 4:24 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 4:24 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 6:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 6:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 6:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 6:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 22:40 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 22:40 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 22:40 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 22:40 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-28 5:19 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-28 5:19 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-28 5:19 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-28 5:19 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-31 6:39 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-31 6:39 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-31 6:39 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-31 6:39 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-31 7:28 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-31 7:28 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-31 7:28 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-31 7:28 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 23:01 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 23:01 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 23:01 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` [PATCH 4/5] superblock: add filesystem shrinker operations Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-25 8:53 ` [PATCH 5/5] xfs: make use of new shrinker callout Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 16:44 ` [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2 Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 16:44 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 16:44 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-28 0:30 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-28 0:30 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-28 0:30 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-28 7:42 ` Artem Bityutskiy [this message]
2010-05-28 7:42 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-05-28 7:42 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-05-28 7:42 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-07-02 12:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-02 12:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-02 12:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-12 2:41 ` Dave Chinner
2010-07-12 2:41 ` Dave Chinner
2010-07-12 2:41 ` Dave Chinner
2010-07-12 2:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-12 2:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-12 2:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1275032526.15516.83.camel@localhost \
--to=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.