Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:53:03PM +1000, Dave Chinner 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.

Seems like a fairly good approach overall. Thanks.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs