From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o6J0S0Yt174990 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:28:01 -0500 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 187E715F1BD8 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail16.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.101]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id z305t4j2mBJIqudM for ; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:30:56 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] xfs: reclaim bug fixes Message-ID: <20100719003056.GG23223@dastard> References: <1279154300-2018-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100716052329.GF29915@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100716052329.GF29915@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, Jul 16, 2010 at 01:23:29AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:38:15AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > The following patches fix excessive CPU consumption during inode > > cache shrinking when filesystems have lots of allocation groups as > > well as prevent a couple of lockdep reports that were found during > > testing. Also included is a fix for a reclaim recursion deadlock > > when allocating memory during inode initialisation. > > Wa the overlap of patch 1 with the for-2.6.35 shrinker series > intentional? In addition to patch 1 patches 3 to 5 are also for-2.6.35 > material in my opinion. I realised that we'd get a messy, messy conflict if I separated the per-ag tree reclaim tracking from the shrinker patchset, so I included it in that one as it was also part of fixing reported XFS shrinker regressions to avoid such conflicts. But yes, i think that all the lockdep fixes are probably 2.6.35 material. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs