From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Lovenberg Subject: Re: [linux-cifs-client] [PATCH] cifs: implement drop_inode superblock op Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:19:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4BFDAC6F.2090604@gmail.com> References: <1274815488-29173-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20100525200920.774cf77e@corrin.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steve French , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f183.google.com ([209.85.221.183]:43029 "EHLO mail-qy0-f183.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757409Ab0EZXSI (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 19:18:08 -0400 Received: by qyk13 with SMTP id 13so9917660qyk.1 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 16:18:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100525200920.774cf77e@corrin.poochiereds.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >> Any rough idea of performance or memory savings (even in something >> artificial like dbench run)? >> >> > It's more of a memory savings thing. When I mount with -o noserverino > and run fsstress on the mount, I'd regularly see the size of the > cifs_inode_cache hit 60M or more (on a client with 1G RAM). With this > patch in place, it rarely goes over 2M in size. > > Eventually, memory pressure will force the size to go down, but if we > know that they'll never be used again (which is the case with > noserverino), it's better to go ahead and just free them. > > I take it this overrides the behavior of the vfs_cache_pressure before the memory pressure makes reclaiming cache necessary?