Hi everyone, Here's a jumping-off point for a discussion about my patchset that implements deferred inode inactivation and Dave's patchset that moves inode buffer flushing out of reclaim. The inactivation series moves the transactional updates that happen after a file loses its last reference (truncating attr/data forks, freeing the inode) out of drop_inode and reclaim by moving all that work to an intermediate workqueue. This all can be done internally to XFS. The reclaim series (Dave) removes inode flushing from reclaim, which means that xfs stop holding up memory reclaim on IO. It also contains a fair amount of surgery to the memory shrinker code, which is an added impediment to getting this series reviewed and upstream. Because of the extra review needed for the reclaim series, does it make sense to keep the two separate? Deferring inactivation alone won't get rid of the inode flushing that goes on in reclaim, but it at least means that we can handle things like "rm -rf $dir" a little more efficiently in that we can do all the directory shrinking at once and then handle the unlinked inodes in on-disk order. It would also, erm, help me reduce the size of my dev tree. :) --D
