From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 37/52] fs: icache lazy lru
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:59:04 +1000
Message-ID: <20100624155904.GK10441@laptop>
References: <20100624030212.676457061@suse.de>
 <20100624030731.563540438@suse.de>
 <87lja4ahad.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87lja4ahad.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:52:58AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> npiggin@suse.de writes:
> 
> > Impelemnt lazy inode lru similarly to dcache. This will reduce lock
> > acquisition and will help to improve lock ordering subsequently.
> 
> Or just drop inode LRU completely and only rely on the dcache for that?

Possible, yes. There was some talking about it. I prefer not to do
anything too controversial yet if possible :)