From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754141AbbCPLjq (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:39:46 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37969 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751345AbbCPLjn (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:39:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:39:38 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Josef Bacik Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Sync and VFS scalability improvements Message-ID: <20150316113938.GH4934@quack.suse.cz> References: <1426016724-23912-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1426016724-23912-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 10-03-15 15:45:15, Josef Bacik wrote: > These are patches that Dave Chinner wrote two years ago that are still very much > needed today. I recently ran into a problem where I had millions of inodes that > needed to be evicted at unmount time and it soft locked up the box and kept any > other file system from doing work. These patches fix this problem by breaking > the inode_sb_list_lock into per-sb, and then converting the per sb inode list > into a list_lru for better scalability. > > I've also pulled forward Dave's sync scalability patches which still seem pretty > relevant. I had to fix a couple of these to bring them forward but I touched > very little and I've preserved the authorship of everything. I added the > Reviewed-by's that were there when the patches were originally submitted. I've > run this through xfstests on btrfs and xfs and verified that everything seems to > be working. If you are interested the original submission can be found here > > http://lwn.net/Articles/561569/ > > Finally the last patch is from me and this fixes the softlockup problems I was > seeing on unmount with a large amount of inodes that needed to be evicted. Just a general process note - when resending patches like this, you should add your Signed-off-by. We know both you and Dave well so it's mostly a cosmetic thing but it's better to do it anyway... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR