From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail105.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.249]:33465 "EHLO mail105.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728872AbfHFViQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:38:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 07:37:08 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 00/24] mm, xfs: non-blocking inode reclaim Message-ID: <20190806213708.GK7777@dread.disaster.area> References: <20190801021752.4986-1-david@fromorbit.com> <20190806055744.GC25736@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190806055744.GC25736@infradead.org> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 10:57:44PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Dave, > > do you have a git tree available to look over the whole series? Not yet, I'll get one up for the next version of the patchset and I have done some page cache vs inode cache balance testing. That, FWIW, is not looking good - the vanilla 5.3-rc3 kernel is unable to maintain a balanced page cache/inode cache working set under steady state tarball-extraction workloads. Memory reclaim looks to be have been completely borked from a system balance perspective since I last looked at it maybe a year ago.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com