From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DF8266B024D for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:41:04 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2 Message-ID: <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard> References: <1274777588-21494-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100702121304.GA10075@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com List-ID: On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Did you plan to resubmit this with the few review comments addressed? > I'd really hate to not see this in 2.6.36. I've been doing some more testing on it, and while I can get a 25% reduction in the time to create and remove 10 million inodes with per-sb shrinker, I can't get the reclaim pattern stable enough for my liking. At this point in the cycle, I'd much prefer just to go with adding a context to the shrinker API to fix the XFS locking issues (i.e. the original patches I sent) and spend a bit more time working out which combination of Nick's and my bits that improves reclaim speed whilst retaining the stability of the courrent code.... 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