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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>