| commit | 40d344ec5ee440596b1f3ae87556e20c7197757a | |
| author | Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> | |
| Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:53:21 +0000 (5 08:53 +0000) | ||
| committer | Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> | |
| Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:17:01 +0000 (19 22:17 -0600) | ||
| tree | e0f41573d782b9c93306cd888b9cd7ff66d361df | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | 28fb588c9bd810dec273d96e80591392f6ce1e1c | commitdiff |
xfs: mark the xfssyncd workqueue as non-reentrant
On a system with lots of memory pressure that is stuck on synchronous inode
reclaim the workqueue code will run one instance of the inode reclaim work
item on every CPU. which is not what we want. Make sure to mark the
xfssyncd workqueue as non-reentrant to make sure there only is one instace
of each running globally. Also stop using special paramater for the
workqueue; now that we guarantee each fs has only running one of each works
at a time there is no need to artificially lower max_active and compensate
for that by setting the WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE flag.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
On a system with lots of memory pressure that is stuck on synchronous inode
reclaim the workqueue code will run one instance of the inode reclaim work
item on every CPU. which is not what we want. Make sure to mark the
xfssyncd workqueue as non-reentrant to make sure there only is one instace
of each running globally. Also stop using special paramater for the
workqueue; now that we guarantee each fs has only running one of each works
at a time there is no need to artificially lower max_active and compensate
for that by setting the WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE flag.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
| fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | diffblobblamehistory |