On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 05:14:00PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:13:21PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > Initial notes: ============== > > > > Mel, Dave, this is the last round of fixes I have for the > > series. The fixes are few, and I was mostly interested in > > getting this out based on an up2date tree so Dave can verify it. > > This should apply fine ontop of Friday's linux-next. > > Alternatively, please grab from branch "kmemcg-lru-shrinker" at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/glommer/memcg.git > > > > Main changes from *v5: * Rebased to linux-next, and fix the > > conflicts with the dcache. * Make sure LRU_RETRY only retry > > once * Prevent the bcache shrinker to scan the caches when > > disabled (by returning 0 in the count function) * Fix i915 > > return code when mutex cannot be acquired. * Only scan > > less-than-batch objects in memcg scenarios > > Ok, this is behaving a *lot* better than v5 in terms of initial > balance and sustained behaviour under pure inode/dentry press > workloads. The previous version was all over the place, not to > mention unstable and prone to unrealted lockups in the block > layer. > > However, I'm not sure that the LRUness of reclaim is working > correctly at this point. When I switch from a write only workload > to a read-only workload (i.e. fsmark finishes and find starts), I > see this: .... > So, yeah, there's still some broken stuff in this patchset that > needs fixing. The script that I'm running to trigger these > problems is pretty basic - it's the same workload I've been using > for the past 3 years for measuring metadata performance of > filesystems: And unmounting an XFS filesystem after running this workload is hanging from time to time due to a reference counting problem on a buffer.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>