On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 3:47 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But taking out your frustrations on the people who are trying to fix > the problems you are seeing isn't productive. We are only a small > team and we can't fix every problem that everyone reports > immediately. Some things take time to fix. I agree. My hope is that explaining our use case helps you make XFS better, but you don't owe us anything. It's our problem to solve and any help you give us is a favor. > IOWs, there are relatively few applications that have such a > significant dependency on memory reclaim having extremely low > latency, Hmm, I'm confused by this. Isn't low-latency memory allocation is a common requirement for any kind of interactive workload? I don't see what's unique about our use case in this respect. Any desktop and most web servers I would think have similar requirements. I'm sure there's something about our use case that's unusual, but it doesn't seem to me that requiring low-latency memory allocation is unique. Maybe the real thing that's odd about us is that we constantly create and delete files at a high rate, and that means we have an excessive number of dirty inodes to flush? > IOWs, we're trying to solve *all* the blocking problems that we know > that can occur in inode reclaim so that it all just works for > everyone without tweaks being necessary. Yes, this takes longer than > just addressing the specific symptom that is causing you problems, > but the reality is while fixing things properly takes time to get > right, everyone will benefit from it being fixed and not just one or > two very specific, latency sensitive workloads. Great, it's good to hear that this problem is expected to be fixed eventually. We can patch our way around it in the meantime. -Kenton
