On 07/21/2017 07:07 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:17 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 07/21/2017 03:30 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 09:43 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Having a limit for the number of negative dentries does have an
undesirable si
On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:17 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/21/2017 03:30 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 09:43 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > >
> > > Having a limit for the number of negative dentries does have an
> > > undesirable side effect that no new negative dentr
On 07/21/2017 03:30 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 09:43 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Having a limit for the number of negative dentries does have an
>> undesirable side effect that no new negative dentries will be allowed
>> when the limit is reached. This will have performance
On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 09:43 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Having a limit for the number of negative dentries does have an
> undesirable side effect that no new negative dentries will be allowed
> when the limit is reached. This will have performance implication
> for some types of workloads.
This re
Having a limit for the number of negative dentries does have an
undesirable side effect that no new negative dentries will be allowed
when the limit is reached. This will have performance implication
for some types of workloads.
So we need a way to prune the negative dentries so that new ones can
