Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 9 Feb 2019 08:25:31 +1100
From:   Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "vdavydov.dev@gmail.com" <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached
 pages"
Message-ID: <20190208212531.GN14116@dastard>
References: <20190130041707.27750-1-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20190130041707.27750-2-david@fromorbit.com>
 <25EAF93D-BC63-4409-AF21-F45B2DDF5D66@fb.com>
 <20190131013403.GI4205@dastard>
 <20190131091011.GP18811@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190131185704.GA8755@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <20190131221904.GL4205@dastard>
 <20190207102750.GA4570@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20190207213727.a791db810341cec2c013ba93@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190207213727.a791db810341cec2c013ba93@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 09:37:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:27:50 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri 01-02-19 09:19:04, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Maybe for memcgs, but that's exactly the oppose of what we want to
> > > do for global caches (e.g. filesystem metadata caches). We need to
> > > make sure that a single, heavily pressured cache doesn't evict small
> > > caches that lower pressure but are equally important for
> > > performance.
> > > 
> > > e.g. I've noticed recently a significant increase in RMW cycles in
> > > XFS inode cache writeback during various benchmarks. It hasn't
> > > affected performance because the machine has IO and CPU to burn, but
> > > on slower machines and storage, it will have a major impact.
> > 
> > Just as a data point, our performance testing infrastructure has bisected
> > down to the commits discussed in this thread as the cause of about 40%
> > regression in XFS file delete performance in bonnie++ benchmark.
> > 
> 
> Has anyone done significant testing with Rik's maybe-fix?

Apart from pointing out all the bugs and incorrect algorithmic
assumptions it makes, no.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com