Re: [PATCH 2/3] fs/superblock: Avoid locking counting inodes and dentries before reclaiming them
On 05/22/2014 05:09 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > From: Tim Chen > > We remove the call to grab_super_passive in call to super_cache_count. > This becomes a scalability bottleneck as multiple threads are trying to do > memory reclamation, e.g. when we are doing large amount of file read and > page cache is under pressure. The cached objects quickly got reclaimed > down to 0 and we are aborting the cache_scan() reclaim. But counting > creates a log jam acquiring the sb_lock. > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Acked-by: Rik van Riel -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 2/3] fs/superblock: Avoid locking counting inodes and dentries before reclaiming them
On 05/22/2014 05:09 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: From: Tim Chen tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com We remove the call to grab_super_passive in call to super_cache_count. This becomes a scalability bottleneck as multiple threads are trying to do memory reclamation, e.g. when we are doing large amount of file read and page cache is under pressure. The cached objects quickly got reclaimed down to 0 and we are aborting the cache_scan() reclaim. But counting creates a log jam acquiring the sb_lock. Signed-off-by: Tim Chen tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de Acked-by: Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
