From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"vdavydov.dev@gmail.com" <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages"
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:27:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190207102750.GA4570@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190131221904.GL4205@dastard>
On Fri 01-02-19 09:19:04, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Maybe for memcgs, but that's exactly the oppose of what we want to
> do for global caches (e.g. filesystem metadata caches). We need to
> make sure that a single, heavily pressured cache doesn't evict small
> caches that lower pressure but are equally important for
> performance.
>
> e.g. I've noticed recently a significant increase in RMW cycles in
> XFS inode cache writeback during various benchmarks. It hasn't
> affected performance because the machine has IO and CPU to burn, but
> on slower machines and storage, it will have a major impact.
Just as a data point, our performance testing infrastructure has bisected
down to the commits discussed in this thread as the cause of about 40%
regression in XFS file delete performance in bonnie++ benchmark.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-07 10:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-30 4:17 [PATCH 0/2] [REGRESSION v4.19-20] mm: shrinkers are now way too aggressive Dave Chinner
2019-01-30 4:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] Revert "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages" Dave Chinner
2019-01-30 12:21 ` Chris Mason
2019-01-31 1:34 ` Dave Chinner
2019-01-31 9:10 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-31 18:57 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-01-31 22:19 ` Dave Chinner
2019-02-04 21:47 ` Dave Chinner
2019-02-07 10:27 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2019-02-08 5:37 ` Andrew Morton
2019-02-08 9:55 ` Jan Kara
2019-02-08 12:50 ` Jan Kara
2019-02-08 22:49 ` Andrew Morton
2019-02-09 3:42 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-02-08 21:25 ` Dave Chinner
2019-02-11 15:34 ` Wolfgang Walter
2019-01-31 15:48 ` Chris Mason
2019-02-01 23:39 ` Dave Chinner
2019-01-30 4:17 ` [PATCH 2/2] Revert "mm: slowly shrink slabs with a relatively small number of objects" Dave Chinner
2019-01-30 5:48 ` [PATCH 0/2] [REGRESSION v4.19-20] mm: shrinkers are now way too aggressive Roman Gushchin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190207102750.GA4570@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).