On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:38:14PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:02:49PM +1000, npiggin@xxxxxxx wrote: > > Impelemnt lazy inode lru similarly to dcache. This will reduce lock > > acquisition and will help to improve lock ordering subsequently. > > I'm not sure we want the I_REFERENCED reclaim free pass for a clean > inode that has been put on the LRU directly. I can see exactly how > it is benficial to delay reclaim of dirty inodes (XFS uses that > trick), but in terms of aging the cache we've already done this > free pass trick at the dentry level. Hence I think the frequent > separate access patterns tend to be filtered out at the dcache level > and hence we don't need to handle that in the inode cache. > > Perhaps we only need the I_REFERENCED flag to give dirty inodes a > chance to be flushed by other means before forcing reclaim to do > inode writeback? It doesn't force flush, but it force invalidates pagecache. -- 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
