From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o6C2ntNK260924 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:49:56 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A5C0243BD48 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lF5ZhqMe5NcWJsi6 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:52:47 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2 Message-ID: <20100712025247.GA16784@infradead.org> References: <1274777588-21494-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:41:04PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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.... That approach sounds good to me. _______________________________________________ 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 S1755852Ab0GLCwu (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:52:50 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:47294 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755388Ab0GLCwt (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:52:49 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:52:47 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , 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: <20100712025247.GA16784@infradead.org> References: <1274777588-21494-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:41:04PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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.... That approach sounds good to me. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:52:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20100712025247.GA16784@infradead.org> References: <1274777588-21494-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:41:04PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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.... That approach sounds good to me. -- 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