From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] inode: Make unused inode LRU per superblock
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 14:23:32 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100527042332.GH22536@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527040210.GI12087@dastard>
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:02:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:04:45PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:01:29AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:17:33AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:53:04PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The inode unused list is currently a global LRU. This does not match
> > > > > the other global filesystem cache - the dentry cache - which uses
> > > > > per-superblock LRU lists. Hence we have related filesystem object
> > > > > types using different LRU reclaimatin schemes.
> > > >
> > > > Is this an improvement I wonder? The dcache is using per sb lists
> > > > because it specifically requires sb traversal.
> > >
> > > Right - I originally implemented the per-sb dentry lists for
> > > scalability purposes. i.e. to avoid monopolising the dentry_lock
> > > during unmount looking for dentries on a specific sb and hanging the
> > > system for several minutes.
> > >
> > > However, the reason for doing this to the inode cache is not for
> > > scalability, it's because we have a tight relationship between the
> > > dentry and inode cacheѕ. That is, reclaim from the dentry LRU grows
> > > the inode LRU. Like the registration of the shrinkers, this is kind
> > > of an implicit, undocumented behavour of the current shrinker
> > > implemenation.
> >
> > Right, that's why I wonder whether it is an improvement. It would
> > be interesting to see some tests (showing at least parity).
>
> I've done some testing showing parity. They've been along the lines
> of:
> - populate cache with 1m dentries + inodes
> - run 'time echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches'
>
> I've used different methods of populating the caches to have them
> non-sequential in the LRU (i.e. trigger fragmentation), have dirty
> backing inodes (e.g. the VFS inode clean, the xfs inode dirty
> because transactions haven't completed), etc.
>
> The variation on the test is around +-10%, with the per-sb shrinkers
> averaging about 5% lower time to reclaim. This is within the error
> margin of the test, so it's not really a conclusive win, but it is
> certainly shows that it does not slow anything down. If you've got a
> better way to test it, then I'm all ears....
I guess the problem is that inode LRU cache isn't very useful as
long as there are dentries in the way (which is most of the time,
isn't it?). I think nfsd will exercise them better? Dont know of
any other cases.
> > Right, it just makes it harder to do. By much harder, I did mostly mean
> > the extra memory overhead.
>
> You've still got to allocate that extra memory on the per-sb dentry
> LRUs so it's not really a valid argument.
Well it would be per-zone, per-sb list, but I don't think that
makes it an ivalid point.
> IOWs, if it's too much
> memory for per-sb inode LRUs, then it's too much memory for the
> per-sb dentry LRUs as well...
Not about how much is too much, it's about more cost or memory
usage for what benefit? I guess it isn't a lot more memory though.
> > If there is *no* benefit from doing per-sb
> > icache then I would question whether we should.
>
> The same vague questions wondering about the benefit of per-sb
> dentry LRUs were raised when I first proposed them years ago, and
> look where we are now.
To be fair that is because there were specific needs to do per-sb
pruning. This isn't the case with icache.
> Besides, focussing on whether this one patch
> is a benefit or not is really missing the point because it's the
> benefits of this patchset as a whole that need to be considered....
I would indeed like to focus on the benefits of the patchset as a
whole. Leaving aside the xfs changes, it would be interesting to
have at least a few numbers for dcache/icache heavy workloads.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] inode: Make unused inode LRU per superblock
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 14:23:32 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100527042332.GH22536@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527040210.GI12087@dastard>
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:02:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:04:45PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:01:29AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:17:33AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:53:04PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The inode unused list is currently a global LRU. This does not match
> > > > > the other global filesystem cache - the dentry cache - which uses
> > > > > per-superblock LRU lists. Hence we have related filesystem object
> > > > > types using different LRU reclaimatin schemes.
> > > >
> > > > Is this an improvement I wonder? The dcache is using per sb lists
> > > > because it specifically requires sb traversal.
> > >
> > > Right - I originally implemented the per-sb dentry lists for
> > > scalability purposes. i.e. to avoid monopolising the dentry_lock
> > > during unmount looking for dentries on a specific sb and hanging the
> > > system for several minutes.
> > >
> > > However, the reason for doing this to the inode cache is not for
> > > scalability, it's because we have a tight relationship between the
> > > dentry and inode cacheѕ. That is, reclaim from the dentry LRU grows
> > > the inode LRU. Like the registration of the shrinkers, this is kind
> > > of an implicit, undocumented behavour of the current shrinker
> > > implemenation.
> >
> > Right, that's why I wonder whether it is an improvement. It would
> > be interesting to see some tests (showing at least parity).
>
> I've done some testing showing parity. They've been along the lines
> of:
> - populate cache with 1m dentries + inodes
> - run 'time echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches'
>
> I've used different methods of populating the caches to have them
> non-sequential in the LRU (i.e. trigger fragmentation), have dirty
> backing inodes (e.g. the VFS inode clean, the xfs inode dirty
> because transactions haven't completed), etc.
>
> The variation on the test is around +-10%, with the per-sb shrinkers
> averaging about 5% lower time to reclaim. This is within the error
> margin of the test, so it's not really a conclusive win, but it is
> certainly shows that it does not slow anything down. If you've got a
> better way to test it, then I'm all ears....
I guess the problem is that inode LRU cache isn't very useful as
long as there are dentries in the way (which is most of the time,
isn't it?). I think nfsd will exercise them better? Dont know of
any other cases.
> > Right, it just makes it harder to do. By much harder, I did mostly mean
> > the extra memory overhead.
>
> You've still got to allocate that extra memory on the per-sb dentry
> LRUs so it's not really a valid argument.
Well it would be per-zone, per-sb list, but I don't think that
makes it an ivalid point.
> IOWs, if it's too much
> memory for per-sb inode LRUs, then it's too much memory for the
> per-sb dentry LRUs as well...
Not about how much is too much, it's about more cost or memory
usage for what benefit? I guess it isn't a lot more memory though.
> > If there is *no* benefit from doing per-sb
> > icache then I would question whether we should.
>
> The same vague questions wondering about the benefit of per-sb
> dentry LRUs were raised when I first proposed them years ago, and
> look where we are now.
To be fair that is because there were specific needs to do per-sb
pruning. This isn't the case with icache.
> Besides, focussing on whether this one patch
> is a benefit or not is really missing the point because it's the
> benefits of this patchset as a whole that need to be considered....
I would indeed like to focus on the benefits of the patchset as a
whole. Leaving aside the xfs changes, it would be interesting to
have at least a few numbers for dcache/icache heavy workloads.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] inode: Make unused inode LRU per superblock
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 14:23:32 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100527042332.GH22536@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527040210.GI12087@dastard>
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:02:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:04:45PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:01:29AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:17:33AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:53:04PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The inode unused list is currently a global LRU. This does not match
> > > > > the other global filesystem cache - the dentry cache - which uses
> > > > > per-superblock LRU lists. Hence we have related filesystem object
> > > > > types using different LRU reclaimatin schemes.
> > > >
> > > > Is this an improvement I wonder? The dcache is using per sb lists
> > > > because it specifically requires sb traversal.
> > >
> > > Right - I originally implemented the per-sb dentry lists for
> > > scalability purposes. i.e. to avoid monopolising the dentry_lock
> > > during unmount looking for dentries on a specific sb and hanging the
> > > system for several minutes.
> > >
> > > However, the reason for doing this to the inode cache is not for
> > > scalability, it's because we have a tight relationship between the
> > > dentry and inode cacheѕ. That is, reclaim from the dentry LRU grows
> > > the inode LRU. Like the registration of the shrinkers, this is kind
> > > of an implicit, undocumented behavour of the current shrinker
> > > implemenation.
> >
> > Right, that's why I wonder whether it is an improvement. It would
> > be interesting to see some tests (showing at least parity).
>
> I've done some testing showing parity. They've been along the lines
> of:
> - populate cache with 1m dentries + inodes
> - run 'time echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches'
>
> I've used different methods of populating the caches to have them
> non-sequential in the LRU (i.e. trigger fragmentation), have dirty
> backing inodes (e.g. the VFS inode clean, the xfs inode dirty
> because transactions haven't completed), etc.
>
> The variation on the test is around +-10%, with the per-sb shrinkers
> averaging about 5% lower time to reclaim. This is within the error
> margin of the test, so it's not really a conclusive win, but it is
> certainly shows that it does not slow anything down. If you've got a
> better way to test it, then I'm all ears....
I guess the problem is that inode LRU cache isn't very useful as
long as there are dentries in the way (which is most of the time,
isn't it?). I think nfsd will exercise them better? Dont know of
any other cases.
> > Right, it just makes it harder to do. By much harder, I did mostly mean
> > the extra memory overhead.
>
> You've still got to allocate that extra memory on the per-sb dentry
> LRUs so it's not really a valid argument.
Well it would be per-zone, per-sb list, but I don't think that
makes it an ivalid point.
> IOWs, if it's too much
> memory for per-sb inode LRUs, then it's too much memory for the
> per-sb dentry LRUs as well...
Not about how much is too much, it's about more cost or memory
usage for what benefit? I guess it isn't a lot more memory though.
> > If there is *no* benefit from doing per-sb
> > icache then I would question whether we should.
>
> The same vague questions wondering about the benefit of per-sb
> dentry LRUs were raised when I first proposed them years ago, and
> look where we are now.
To be fair that is because there were specific needs to do per-sb
pruning. This isn't the case with icache.
> Besides, focussing on whether this one patch
> is a benefit or not is really missing the point because it's the
> benefits of this patchset as a whole that need to be considered....
I would indeed like to focus on the benefits of the patchset as a
whole. Leaving aside the xfs changes, it would be interesting to
have at least a few numbers for dcache/icache heavy workloads.
--
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: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] inode: Make unused inode LRU per superblock
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 14:23:32 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100527042332.GH22536@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527040210.GI12087@dastard>
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:02:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:04:45PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:01:29AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:17:33AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:53:04PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The inode unused list is currently a global LRU. This does not match
> > > > > the other global filesystem cache - the dentry cache - which uses
> > > > > per-superblock LRU lists. Hence we have related filesystem object
> > > > > types using different LRU reclaimatin schemes.
> > > >
> > > > Is this an improvement I wonder? The dcache is using per sb lists
> > > > because it specifically requires sb traversal.
> > >
> > > Right - I originally implemented the per-sb dentry lists for
> > > scalability purposes. i.e. to avoid monopolising the dentry_lock
> > > during unmount looking for dentries on a specific sb and hanging the
> > > system for several minutes.
> > >
> > > However, the reason for doing this to the inode cache is not for
> > > scalability, it's because we have a tight relationship between the
> > > dentry and inode cacheN?. That is, reclaim from the dentry LRU grows
> > > the inode LRU. Like the registration of the shrinkers, this is kind
> > > of an implicit, undocumented behavour of the current shrinker
> > > implemenation.
> >
> > Right, that's why I wonder whether it is an improvement. It would
> > be interesting to see some tests (showing at least parity).
>
> I've done some testing showing parity. They've been along the lines
> of:
> - populate cache with 1m dentries + inodes
> - run 'time echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches'
>
> I've used different methods of populating the caches to have them
> non-sequential in the LRU (i.e. trigger fragmentation), have dirty
> backing inodes (e.g. the VFS inode clean, the xfs inode dirty
> because transactions haven't completed), etc.
>
> The variation on the test is around +-10%, with the per-sb shrinkers
> averaging about 5% lower time to reclaim. This is within the error
> margin of the test, so it's not really a conclusive win, but it is
> certainly shows that it does not slow anything down. If you've got a
> better way to test it, then I'm all ears....
I guess the problem is that inode LRU cache isn't very useful as
long as there are dentries in the way (which is most of the time,
isn't it?). I think nfsd will exercise them better? Dont know of
any other cases.
> > Right, it just makes it harder to do. By much harder, I did mostly mean
> > the extra memory overhead.
>
> You've still got to allocate that extra memory on the per-sb dentry
> LRUs so it's not really a valid argument.
Well it would be per-zone, per-sb list, but I don't think that
makes it an ivalid point.
> IOWs, if it's too much
> memory for per-sb inode LRUs, then it's too much memory for the
> per-sb dentry LRUs as well...
Not about how much is too much, it's about more cost or memory
usage for what benefit? I guess it isn't a lot more memory though.
> > If there is *no* benefit from doing per-sb
> > icache then I would question whether we should.
>
> The same vague questions wondering about the benefit of per-sb
> dentry LRUs were raised when I first proposed them years ago, and
> look where we are now.
To be fair that is because there were specific needs to do per-sb
pruning. This isn't the case with icache.
> Besides, focussing on whether this one patch
> is a benefit or not is really missing the point because it's the
> benefits of this patchset as a whole that need to be considered....
I would indeed like to focus on the benefits of the patchset as a
whole. Leaving aside the xfs changes, it would be interesting to
have at least a few numbers for dcache/icache heavy workloads.
--
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:[~2010-05-27 4:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 132+ 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 [this message]
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
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
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-05-14 7:24 [PATCH 0/5] Per-superblock shrinkers Dave Chinner
2010-05-14 7:24 ` [PATCH 1/5] inode: Make unused inode LRU per superblock Dave Chinner
2010-05-14 7:24 ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-14 7:24 ` Dave Chinner
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=20100527042332.GH22536@laptop \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--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.