lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] JBD ordered mode rewrite
On Thu 06-03-08 15:53:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:42:09 +0100
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > Below is my rewrite of ordered mode in JBD. Now we don't have a list of
> > data buffers that need syncing on transaction commit but a list of inodes
> > that need writeout during commit. This brings all sorts of advantages such
> > as possibility to get rid of journal heads and buffer heads for data
> > buffers in ordered mode, better ordering of writes on transaction commit,
> > simplification of some JBD code, no more anonymous pages when truncate of
> > data being committed happens. The patch has survived some light testing
> > but it still has some potential of eating your data so beware :) I've run
> > dbench to see whether we didn't decrease performance by different handling
> > of truncate and the throughput I'm getting on my machine is the same (OK,
> > is lower by 0.5%) if I disable the code in truncate waiting for commit to
> > finish... Also the throughput of dbench is about 2% better with my patch
> > than with current JBD.
> > Any comments or testing most welcome.
>
> Thanks for plugging away with this.
>
> Please change your patch preparation tools to always always include a
> diffstat, OK?
Hmm, I mostly submit patches by hand but I'll try to not forget generate
patches with git-diff --stat ;).

> fs/buffer.c | 3
> fs/ext3/ialloc.c | 1
> fs/ext3/inode.c | 118 +++++++++---------
> fs/ext3/super.c | 2
> fs/jbd/checkpoint.c | 1
> fs/jbd/commit.c | 257 +++++++++++++----------------------------
> fs/jbd/journal.c | 45 +++++++
> fs/jbd/transaction.c | 288 +++++++++++-----------------------------------
> fs/mpage.c | 5
> include/linux/ext3_fs.h | 1
> include/linux/ext3_fs_i.h | 1
> include/linux/jbd.h | 70 +++++++----
> include/linux/writeback.h | 2
> 13 files changed, 326 insertions(+), 468 deletions(-)
>
> Would it make sense to turn this patch into a patch series sometime?
We can definitely split out ext3 and JBD changes (although ext3 would not
compile after JBD changes). I'll have a look at what Mingming suggests -
whether we could make both modes coexist reasonably easily. In that case also
patches could change smaller chunks.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-10 18:41    [W:0.198 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site