On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:09:37PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:03:03PM +1000, npiggin@xxxxxxx wrote: > > Per-zone LRUs and shrinkers for dentry and inode caches. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> > > This destroys any notion we have of global LRU-ness of inode and > dentry caches, doesn't it? Yes. > Can you outline in more detail what sort > of reclaim pattern this results in. e.g. is a workload running on > a single node now effectively limited to a dentry/icache size within > the local node because of local node slab allocation and per-zone > reclaim? No, it will just make the vfs cache reclaim work similarly to pagecache reclaim. Reclaimers (kswapd) can work on node local memory; memory pressure in a particular zone can be targetted specifically instead of shrinking all zones until it is OK; zone reclaim will work properly for vfs caches; partitioning of workloads can be better. Workload on a single node can certainly still use up all global memory if that is how the policy is configured. Global LRU ordering is lost, but it is approximated when there is a global memory shortage by scanning a little from each zone head. When there is a local memory shortage it should be superior because that can be resolved without reclaiming so much memory. Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
