Re: [PATCH] Avoid useless inodes and dentries reclamation

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

 



The new shrinker infrastructure in mmotm looks like it will make this
problem worse.

old code:
shrink_slab()
	for_each_shrinker {
		do_shrinker_shrink(); // one per batch
			prune_super()
				grab_super_passive()
	}
}

Which means we've got at _most_ one grab_super_passive() per batch.  The
new code is something like this:

shrink_slab()
{
	list_for_each_entry(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
                for_each_node_mask(... shrinkctl->nodes_to_scan) {
			shrink_slab_node()
		}
	}
}

shrink_slab_node()
{
        max_pass = shrinker->count_objects(shrinker, shrinkctl);
	// ^^ does grab_super_passive()
	...
	while (total_scan >= batch_size) {
		ret = shrinker->scan_objects(shrinker, shrinkctl);
		// ^^ does grab_super_passive()
	}
}

We've got an extra grab_super_passive()s in the case where we are
actually doing a scan, plus we've got the extra for_each_node_mask()
loop.  That means even more lock acquisitions in the multi-node NUMA
case, which is exactly where we want to get rid of global lock acquisitions.

--
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




[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