Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2

[Dave Chinner]

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Did you plan to resubmit this with the few review comments addressed?
> I'd really hate to not see this in 2.6.36.

I've been doing some more testing on it, and while I can get a 25%
reduction in the time to create and remove 10 million inodes with
per-sb shrinker, I can't get the reclaim pattern stable enough for
my liking.

At this point in the cycle, I'd much prefer just to go with adding a
context to the shrinker API to fix the XFS locking issues (i.e.  the
original patches I sent) and spend a bit more time working out which
combination of Nick's and my bits that improves reclaim speed whilst
retaining the stability of the courrent code....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/