[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25EAF93D-BC63-4409-AF21-F45B2DDF5D66@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:21:07 +0000
From: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mhocko@...nel.org" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
"vdavydov.dev@...il.com" <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached
pages"
On 29 Jan 2019, at 23:17, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
>
> This reverts commit a76cf1a474d7dbcd9336b5f5afb0162baa142cf0.
>
> This change causes serious changes to page cache and inode cache
> behaviour and balance, resulting in major performance regressions
> when combining worklaods such as large file copies and kernel
> compiles.
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202441
I'm a little confused by the latest comment in the bz:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202441#c24
Are these reverts sufficient?
Roman beat me to suggesting Rik's followup. We hit a different problem
in prod with small slabs, and have a lot of instrumentation on Rik's
code helping.
-chris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists