From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f72.google.com (mail-pl0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAB56B0005 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 20:08:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f72.google.com with SMTP id w11-v6so1764272plq.8 for ; Wed, 08 Aug 2018 17:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org. [2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i6-v6si4984419pgt.352.2018.08.08.17.08.10 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 08 Aug 2018 17:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:07:08 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/10] rcu: Make CONFIG_SRCU unconditionally enabled Message-ID: <20180809000708.GA5566@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <153365347929.19074.12509495712735843805.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <153365625652.19074.8434946780002619802.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20180808072040.GC27972@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180808102734.GH27972@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180808213125.GM2234@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180808213125.GM2234@dastard> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dave Chinner Cc: Michal Hocko , Kirill Tkhai , akpm@linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, darrick.wong@oracle.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, hughd@google.com, shuah@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, aspriel@gmail.com, vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, joe@perches.com, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk, penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com, ying.huang@intel.com, shakeelb@google.com, jbacik@fb.com, mingo@kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 07:31:25AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > IMO, we've had enough recent bugs to deal with from shrinkers being > called before the filesystem is set up and from trying to handle > allocation errors during setup. Do we really want to make shrinker > shutdown just as prone to mismanagement and subtle, hard to hit > bugs? I don't think we do - unmount is simply not a critical > performance path. It's never been performance critical for me, but I'm not so sure that there aren't container workloads which unmount filesystems multiple times per second.