From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 12/31] fs: convert inode and dentry shrinking to be node aware Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:41 +1000 Message-ID: <20130518033941.GB6495@dastard> References: <1368382432-25462-1-git-send-email-glommer@openvz.org> <1368382432-25462-13-git-send-email-glommer@openvz.org> <20130514095200.GI29466@dastard> <5193A95E.70205@parallels.com> <20130516000216.GC24635@dastard> <5195302A.2090406@parallels.com> <20130517005134.GK24635@dastard> <5195DC59.8000205@parallels.com> <51964381.8010406@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Glauber Costa , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Greg Thelen , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner To: Glauber Costa Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51964381.8010406@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 06:49:37PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 05/17/2013 11:29 AM, Glauber Costa wrote: > > Except that shrink_slab_node would also defer work, right? > > > >> > The only thing I don't like about this is the extra nodemask needed, > >> > which, like the scan control, would have to sit on the stack. > >> > Suggestions for avoiding that problem are welcome.. :) > >> > > > I will try to come up with a patch to do all this, and then we can > > concretely discuss. > > You are also of course welcome to do so as well =) > > > All right. > > I played a bit today with variations of this patch that will keep the > deferred count per node. I will rebase the whole series ontop of it (the > changes can get quite disruptive) and post. I want to believe that > after this, all our regression problems will be gone (famous last words). > > As I have told you, I wasn't seeing problems like you are, and > speculated that this was due to the disk speeds. While this is true, > the patch I came up with makes my workload actually a lot better. > While my caches weren't being emptied, they were being slightly depleted > and then slowly filled again. With my new patch, it is almost > a straight line throughout the whole find run. There is a dent here and > there eventually, but it recovers quickly. It takes some time as well > for steady state to be reached, but once it is, we have all variables > in the equation (dentries, inodes, etc) basically flat. So I guess it > works, and I am confident that it will make your workload better. Sounds promising. A non-numa system gives dead flat linesonthat workload, and that's how I want a numa system to behave as well when there is even pressure applied across all nodes. Sorry for not doing more here - I've been flat out the last couple of days with XFS CRC stuff. Let me know when you have a tree rebased as far as this patch and I'll run some tests here.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org