[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110602113026.7291b1a7@absol.kitzblitz>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:30:26 +0200
From: Nicolas Kaiser <nikai@...ai.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] vfs: increase shrinker batch size
Just noticed below two typos.
* Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
>
> Now that the per-sb shrinker is responsible for shrinking 2 or more
> caches, increase the batch size to keep econmies of scale for
economies
(..)
> Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt | 5 +++++
> fs/super.c | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt
> index dc732d2..2e26973 100644
> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt
> @@ -317,6 +317,11 @@ or bottom half).
> the VM is trying to reclaim under GFP_NOFS conditions, hence this
> method does not need to handle that situation itself.
>
> + Implementations must include conditional reschedule calls inside any
> + scanning loop that is done. This allows the VFS to determine
> + appropriate scan batch sizes without having to worry about whether
> + implementations will cause holdoff problems due ot large batch sizes.
due to
Best regards,
Nicolas Kaiser
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists