lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.065 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site