[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YfdkCsxyu0jpo+98@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:22:34 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] nfs: remove reliance on bdi congestion
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 03:03:53PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> - .writepage to return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE if WB_SYNC_NONE
> and the flag is set.
Is this actually useful? I ask because Dave Chinner believes
the call to ->writepage in vmscan to be essentially unused.
See commit 21b4ee7029c9, and I had a followup discussion with him
on IRC:
<willy> dchinner: did you gather any stats on how often ->writepage was
being called by pageout() before "xfs: drop ->writepage completely"
was added?
<dchinner> willy: Never saw it on XFS in 3 years in my test environment...
<dchinner> I don't ever recall seeing the memory reclaim guards we put on
->writepage in XFS ever firing - IIRC they'd been there for the best
part of a decade.
<willy> not so much the WARN_ON firing but the case where it actually calls
iomap_writepage
<dchinner> willy: I mean both - I was running with a local patch that warned
on writepage for a long time, regardless of where it was called from.
I can believe things are different for a network filesystem, or maybe
XFS does background writeback better than other filesystems, but it
would be intriguing to be able to get rid of ->writepage altogether
(or at least from pageout(); migrate.c may be a thornier proposition).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists