From: Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Jan Kara <email@example.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Roman Gushchin <email@example.com>, Michal Hocko <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Chris Mason <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages" Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:49:44 -0800 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190208125049.GA11587@quack2.suse.cz> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:50:49 +0100 Jan Kara <email@example.com> wrote: > > > Has anyone done significant testing with Rik's maybe-fix? > > > > I will give it a spin with bonnie++ today. We'll see what comes out. > > OK, I did a bonnie++ run with Rik's patch (on top of 4.20 to rule out other > differences). This machine does not show so big differences in bonnie++ > numbers but the difference is still clearly visible. The results are > (averages of 5 runs): > > Revert Base Rik > SeqCreate del 78.04 ( 0.00%) 98.18 ( -25.81%) 90.90 ( -16.48%) > RandCreate del 87.68 ( 0.00%) 95.01 ( -8.36%) 87.66 ( 0.03%) > > 'Revert' is 4.20 with "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages" > and "mm: slowly shrink slabs with a relatively small number of objects" > reverted. 'Base' is the kernel without any reverts. 'Rik' is a 4.20 with > Rik's patch applied. > > The numbers are time to do a batch of deletes so lower is better. You can see > that the patch did help somewhat but it was not enough to close the gap > when files are deleted in 'readdir' order. OK, thanks. I guess we need a rethink on Roman's fixes. I'll queued the reverts. BTW, one thing I don't think has been discussed (or noticed) is the effect of "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages" on 32-bit highmem machines. Look why someone added that code in the first place: : commit f9a316fa9099053a299851762aedbf12881cff42 : Author: Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org> : Date: Thu Oct 31 04:09:37 2002 -0800 : : [PATCH] strip pagecache from to-be-reaped inodes : : With large highmem machines and many small cached files it is possible : to encounter ZONE_NORMAL allocation failures. This can be demonstrated : with a large number of one-byte files on a 7G machine. : : All lowmem is filled with icache and all those inodes have a small : amount of highmem pagecache which makes them unfreeable. : : The patch strips the pagecache from inodes as they come off the tail of : the inode_unused list. : : I play tricks in there peeking at the head of the inode_unused list to : pick up the inode again after running iput(). The alternatives seemed : to involve more widespread changes. : : Or running invalidate_inode_pages() under inode_lock which would be a : bad thing from a scheduling latency and lock contention point of view. I guess I shold have added a comment. Doh.
next prev parent reply index 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 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 [this message] 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 publically 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 \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ /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
Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/0 linux-fsdevel/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 linux-fsdevel linux-fsdevel/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel \ email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org public-inbox-index linux-fsdevel Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox