Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Sep 2004 12:08:18 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] adding per sb inode list to make invalidate_inodes() faster |
| |
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 11:06:22AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Yes. > > I have not merged it up because it seems rather dopey to add eight bytes to > > the inode to speed up something as rare as umount. > > Is there a convincing reason for proceeding with the change? > > The only motive I'm aware of is for latency in the presence of things > such as autofs. It's also worth noting that in the presence of things > such as removable media umount is also much more common. I personally > find this sufficiently compelling. Kirill may have additional ammunition.
Well. That's why I'm keeping the patch alive-but-unmerged. Waiting to see who wants it.
There are people who have large machines which are automounting hundreds of different NFS servers. I'd certainly expect such a machine to experience ongoing umount glitches. But no reports have yet been sighted by this little black duck.
> Also, the additional sizeof(struct list_head) is only a requirement > while the global inode LRU is maintained. I believed it would have > been beneficial to have localized the LRU to the sb also, which would > have maintained sizeof(struct inode0 at parity with current mainline.
Could be. We would give each superblock its own shrinker callback and everything should balance out nicely (hah). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |