From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [patch 13/14] fs: icache split IO and LRU lists
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:00:28 +1100
Message-ID: <20101022000028.GE3270@amd>
References: <20101021130829.442910807@kernel.dk>
 <20101021131017.274548424@kernel.dk>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1010211018250.24115@router.home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: npiggin@kernel.dk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1010211018250.24115@router.home>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:28:42AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, npiggin@kernel.dk wrote:
> 
> > Split inode reclaim and writeback lists in preparation to scale them up
> > (per-bdi locking for i_io and per-zone locking for i_lru)
> 
> Why per zone and not per node? Is there any chance of having lru lists for
> ZONE_NORMAL and ZONE_DMA?

I guess I see that as coupling a bit too much with the MM. We know that
zones are the unit of allocation and reclaim, but I don't think we need
to care about which zones we need to care about, or the node:zone
relationship.