From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o08Ah03H031558 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 04:43:01 -0600 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B310F151F32 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 02:43:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail18.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.103]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id PCBl54Wbcd8PkAV2 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:43:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 21:43:48 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: reclaim all inodes by background tree walks Message-ID: <20100108104348.GB8718@discord.disaster> References: <1262819125-27083-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1262819125-27083-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100108102408.GB16640@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100108102408.GB16640@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 05:24:08AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Looks safe to me. I wonder whaimpact leaving the inodes around for > longer has to memory usage for inode heavy workloads, though. In terms of wall time, nothing I can measure, but it seems to reduce system time slightly. My main concern is memory pressure - maybe it needs a shrinker registered to reclaim inodes immediately rather than waiting for the next xfsssyncd run... > > unlock_and_requeue: > > + /* > > + * We could return EAGAIN here to make reclaim rescan the inode tree in > > + * a short while. However, this just burns CPU time scanning the tree > > + * waiting for IO to complete and xfssyncd never goes back to the idle > > + * state. Instead, return 0 to let the next scheduled background reclaim > > + * attempt to reclaim the inode again. > > + */ > > xfs_iflags_clear(ip, XFS_IRECLAIM); > > xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); > > - return EAGAIN; > > + return 0; > > This is an unrelated change and should be a patch of it's own. Yup. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs