On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:56 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Before we introduce per-buftarg LRU lists, split the shrinker > implementation into per-buftarg shrinker callbacks. At the moment > we wake all the xfsbufds to run the delayed write queues to free > the dirty buffers and make their pages available for reclaim. > However, with an LRU, we want to be able to free clean, unused > buffers as well, so we need to separate the xfsbufd from the > shrinker callbacks. I have one comment/question embedded below. Your new shrinker is better than the old one (and would have been even if you didn't make them per-buftarg). It doesn't initiate flushing when it's passed 0 for nr_to_scan (though to be honest I'm not sure what practical effect that will have). In any case... Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c | 89 ++++++++++++-------------------------------- > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.h | 4 +- > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c > index cce427d..3b54fee 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c . . . > @@ -337,7 +332,6 @@ _xfs_buf_lookup_pages( > __func__, gfp_mask); > > XFS_STATS_INC(xb_page_retries); > - xfsbufd_wakeup(NULL, 0, gfp_mask); Why is it OK not to wake up the shrinker(s) here now, when it was called for previously? > congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50); > goto retry; > } . . . _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
