Message ID | 20190801021752.4986-13-david@fromorbit.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | mm, xfs: non-blocking inode reclaim | expand |
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:17:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> > > The XFS inode item slab actually reclaimed by inode shrinker > callbacks from the memory reclaim subsystem. These should be marked > as reclaimable so the mm subsystem has the full picture of how much > memory it can actually reclaim from the XFS slab caches. Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Btw, I wonder if we should just kill off our KM_ZONE_* defined. They just make it a little harder to figure out what is actually going on without a real benefit.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 10:52:49PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:17:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> > > > > The XFS inode item slab actually reclaimed by inode shrinker > > callbacks from the memory reclaim subsystem. These should be marked > > as reclaimable so the mm subsystem has the full picture of how much > > memory it can actually reclaim from the XFS slab caches. > > Looks good, > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > Btw, I wonder if we should just kill off our KM_ZONE_* defined. They > just make it a little harder to figure out what is actually going on > without a real benefit. Yeah, they don't serve much purpose now, it might be worth cleaning up. Cheers, Dave.
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c index f9450235533c..67b59815d0df 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c @@ -1916,7 +1916,7 @@ xfs_init_zones(void) xfs_ili_zone = kmem_zone_init_flags(sizeof(xfs_inode_log_item_t), "xfs_ili", - KM_ZONE_SPREAD, NULL); + KM_ZONE_SPREAD | KM_ZONE_RECLAIM, NULL); if (!xfs_ili_zone) goto out_destroy_inode_zone; xfs_icreate_zone = kmem_zone_init(sizeof(struct xfs_icreate_item),