On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:05 AM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Heh, only after I sent this did I think about tagging the subject line > and sending links to git branches when applicable. > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:58:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > 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 > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/log/?h=deferred-inactivation > > > 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 > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20191031234618.15403-1-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > --D > > > 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. > > +CC: Chris Mason And here is a link to one of the famous bug reports: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/06aade22-b29e-f55e-7f00-39154f220aa6@xxxxxx/ which also includes a reference to Chris's simoop reproducer. How about bringing in some FB engineers to the task force to help with reviewing the memory shrinker changes and with testing? I believe it is in the best interest of the wider filesystem community to expedite development of this solution. Thanks, Amir.
