Re: [patch 52/52] fs: icache less I_FREEING time
From: Dave Chinner
Date: Wed Jun 30 2010 - 23:34:09 EST
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:14:52PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:13:54PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:03:04PM +1000, npiggin@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Problem with inode reclaim is that it puts inodes into I_FREEING state
> > > and then continues to gather more, during which it may iput,
> > > invalidate_mapping_pages, be preempted, etc. Holding these inodes in
> > > I_FREEING can cause pauses.
> > What sort of pauses? I can't see how holding a few inodes in
> > I_FREEING state would cause any serious sort of holdoff...
> Well if the inode is accessed again, it has to wait for potentially
> hundreds of inodes to be found from the LRU, pagecache invalidated,
> and destroyed.
So it's a theoretical concern you have, not something that's
actually been demonstrated as a problem?
As it is, If the inode is accessed immediately after teardown has
started, then we failed to hold on to the inode at a higher level
for long enough. Changing the I_FREEING behaviour is trying to
address the issue at the wrong level...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/