From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o6C2cEOT260507 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:38:15 -0500 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 5C78615B03F6 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail17.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.102]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id mW2K1FG3LOPyEXLx for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:41:04 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2 Message-ID: <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard> References: <1274777588-21494-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Did you plan to resubmit this with the few review comments addressed? > I'd really hate to not see this in 2.6.36. I've been doing some more testing on it, and while I can get a 25% reduction in the time to create and remove 10 million inodes with per-sb shrinker, I can't get the reclaim pattern stable enough for my liking. At this point in the cycle, I'd much prefer just to go with adding a context to the shrinker API to fix the XFS locking issues (i.e. the original patches I sent) and spend a bit more time working out which combination of Nick's and my bits that improves reclaim speed whilst retaining the stability of the courrent code.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755674Ab0GLClS (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:41:18 -0400 Received: from bld-mail17.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.102]:37776 "EHLO mail.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753913Ab0GLClQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:41:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:41:04 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: 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 Message-ID: <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard> References: <1274777588-21494-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Did you plan to resubmit this with the few review comments addressed? > I'd really hate to not see this in 2.6.36. I've been doing some more testing on it, and while I can get a 25% reduction in the time to create and remove 10 million inodes with per-sb shrinker, I can't get the reclaim pattern stable enough for my liking. At this point in the cycle, I'd much prefer just to go with adding a context to the shrinker API to fix the XFS locking issues (i.e. the original patches I sent) and spend a bit more time working out which combination of Nick's and my bits that improves reclaim speed whilst retaining the stability of the courrent code.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2 Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:41:04 +1000 Message-ID: <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard> References: <1274777588-21494-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Did you plan to resubmit this with the few review comments addressed? > I'd really hate to not see this in 2.6.36. I've been doing some more testing on it, and while I can get a 25% reduction in the time to create and remove 10 million inodes with per-sb shrinker, I can't get the reclaim pattern stable enough for my liking. At this point in the cycle, I'd much prefer just to go with adding a context to the shrinker API to fix the XFS locking issues (i.e. the original patches I sent) and spend a bit more time working out which combination of Nick's and my bits that improves reclaim speed whilst retaining the stability of the courrent code.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- 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: email@kvack.org