From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 13/14] fs: icache split IO and LRU lists Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:05:27 +1100 Message-ID: <20101022010527.GA6048@amd> References: <20101021130829.442910807@kernel.dk> <20101021131017.274548424@kernel.dk> <20101022000028.GE3270@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.141]:64931 "EHLO ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751884Ab0JVBFb (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:05:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101022000028.GE3270@amd> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:00:28AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > 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. But let's not worry about that in the context of this patch set. This is just a minimal lock breaking, and the scalability steps can go in any direction after this. I think zone based reclaim seems to be the way to go, but we could discuss the point in a patch that implements it, on top of this series. Thanks, Nick