Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 29 Jan 2019, at 23:17, Dave Chinner wrote:

> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This reverts commit a76cf1a474d7dbcd9336b5f5afb0162baa142cf0.
>
> This change causes serious changes to page cache and inode cache
> behaviour and balance, resulting in major performance regressions
> when combining worklaods such as large file copies and kernel
> compiles.
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202441

I'm a little confused by the latest comment in the bz:

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202441#c24

Are these reverts sufficient?

Roman beat me to suggesting Rik's followup.  We hit a different problem 
in prod with small slabs, and have a lot of instrumentation on Rik's 
code helping.

-chris




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux