From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 52/52] fs: icache less I_FREEING time
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:14:52 +1000
Message-ID: <20100630121452.GG21358@laptop>
References: <20100624030212.676457061@suse.de>
 <20100624030734.042332166@suse.de>
 <20100630101354.GK24712@dastard>
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: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100630101354.GK24712@dastard>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:13:54PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:03:04PM +1000, npiggin@suse.de wrote:
> > Problem with inode reclaim is that it puts inodes into I_FREEING state
> > and then continues to gather more, during which it may iput,
> > invalidate_mapping_pages, be preempted, etc. Holding these inodes in
> > I_FREEING can cause pauses.
> 
> What sort of pauses? I can't see how holding a few inodes in
> I_FREEING state would cause any serious sort of holdoff...

Well if the inode is accessed again, it has to wait for potentially
hundreds of inodes to be found from the LRU, pagecache invalidated,
and destroyed.