From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 03:16:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 03:16:38 -0500 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:1966 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 03:16:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3DF05EA7.4BDCBFF0@digeo.com> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 00:24:07 -0800 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.46 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Lee Irwin III CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.50-bk5-wli-1 References: <20021206080009.GB11023@holomorphy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2002 08:24:07.0454 (UTC) FILETIME=[D850F3E0:01C29D00] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > 2.5.50-wli-bk5-12 resize inode cache wait table -- 8 is too small Heh. I decided to make that really, really, really tiny in the expectation that if it was _too_ small, someone would notice. For what workload is the 8 too small, and what is the call path of the waiters? (If it is `tiobench 100000000' and the wait is in __writeback_single_inode(), then we should probably just return from there if !sync and the inode is locked)