From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o4QGgGxa087573 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 11:42:17 -0500 Received: from mx1.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B09EAA56467 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 09:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (cantor.suse.de [195.135.220.2]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 7mGJiqSYmWYiGmb3 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 09:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 02:44:37 +1000 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2 Message-ID: <20100526164437.GE22536@laptop> References: <1274777588-21494-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1274777588-21494-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:53:03PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > This series reworks the filesystem shrinkers. We currently have a > set of issues with the current filesystem shrinkers: > > 1. There is an dependency between dentry and inode cache > shrinking that is only implicitly defined by the order of > shrinker registration. > 2. The shrinkers need to walk the superblock list and pin > the superblock to avoid unmount races with the sb going > away. > 3. The dentry cache uses per-superblock LRUs and proportions > reclaim between all the superblocks which means we are > doing breadth based reclaim. This means we touch every > superblock for every shrinker call, and may only reclaim > a single dentry at a time from a given superblock. > 4. The inode cache has a global LRU, so it has different > reclaim patterns to the dentry cache, despite the fact > that the dentry cache is generally the only thing that > pins inodes in memory. > 5. Filesystems need to register their own shrinkers for > caches and can't co-ordinate them with the dentry and > inode cache shrinkers. Seems like a fairly good approach overall. Thanks. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs