Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267303AbUIJJIA (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:08:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267324AbUIJJIA (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:08:00 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:8387 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267303AbUIJJH6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:07:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:05:29 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: wli@holomorphy.com, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] adding per sb inode list to make invalidate_inodes() faster Message-Id: <20040910020529.2a1ea4f3.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <41416BCA.3020005@sw.ru> References: <4140791F.8050207@sw.ru> <20040909171927.GU3106@holomorphy.com> <20040909110622.78028ae6.akpm@osdl.org> <20040909181818.GF3106@holomorphy.com> <20040909120818.7f127d14.akpm@osdl.org> <41416BCA.3020005@sw.ru> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1419 Lines: 33 Kirill Korotaev wrote: > > Well for sure this bug can be triggered only on really big servers with > a huge amount of memory and cache size. > It's up to you whether to apply it or not. I understand your position > about 8 bytes, but probably it's just a question of using kernel, > whether it's a user or server system. > Probably we can introduce some config option which would trigger > features such as this one for enterprise systems. I am paralysed by indecision! It would be nice if we had evidence that more than one site in the world was affected by this :( I can't see an less space-consuming alternative here (apart from per-sb lru) > >> Also, the additional sizeof(struct list_head) is only a requirement > >> while the global inode LRU is maintained. I believed it would have > >> been beneficial to have localized the LRU to the sb also, which would > >> have maintained sizeof(struct inode0 at parity with current mainline. > > > > Could be. We would give each superblock its own shrinker callback and > > everything should balance out nicely (hah). > > heh, and how do you plan to make per-sb LRU to be fair? Good point. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/