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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.