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 p529VCqf186667 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 04:31:12 -0500 Received: from webhosting01.bon.m2soft.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id DD7D44964E4 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 02:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webhosting01.bon.m2soft.com (webhosting01.bon.m2soft.com [195.38.20.32]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 2Jv6X7A2eVBNO4i6 for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:30:26 +0200 From: Nicolas Kaiser Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] vfs: increase shrinker batch size Message-ID: <20110602113026.7291b1a7@absol.kitzblitz> In-Reply-To: <1306998067-27659-12-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> References: <1306998067-27659-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1306998067-27659-12-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 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 Just noticed below two typos. * Dave Chinner : > From: Dave Chinner > > Now that the per-sb shrinker is responsible for shrinking 2 or more > caches, increase the batch size to keep econmies of scale for economies (..) > Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt | 5 +++++ > fs/super.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt > index dc732d2..2e26973 100644 > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt > @@ -317,6 +317,11 @@ or bottom half). > the VM is trying to reclaim under GFP_NOFS conditions, hence this > method does not need to handle that situation itself. > > + Implementations must include conditional reschedule calls inside any > + scanning loop that is done. This allows the VFS to determine > + appropriate scan batch sizes without having to worry about whether > + implementations will cause holdoff problems due ot large batch sizes. due to Best regards, Nicolas Kaiser _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs