lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] block integrity: Fix write after checksum calculation problem
On Wed 23-02-11 11:24:50, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> writes:
>
> >> Agreed. I too am curious to study which circumstances favor copying
> >> vs blocking.
>
> Dave> IMO blocking is generally preferable in high throughput threaded
> Dave> workloads as there is always another thread that can do useful
> Dave> work while we wait for IO to complete. Most use cases for DIF
> Dave> center around high throughput environments....
>
> Yeah.
>
> A while back I did a bunch of tests with a liberal amount of
> wait_on_page_writeback() calls added to (I think) ext2, ext3, and
> XFS. For my regular workloads there was no measurable change (kernel
> builds, random database and I/O tests). I'm sure we'll unearth some apps
> that will suffer when DI is on but so far I'm not too worried about
> blocking in the data path.
>
> My main concern is wrt. metadata because that's where extN really
> hurts. Simple test: Unpack a kernel tarball and watch the directory
> block fireworks. Given how frequently those buffers get hit I'm sure
> blocking would cause performance to tank completely. I looked into
> fixing this in ext2 but I had to stop because my eyes were bleeding.
Ext2 is problematic yes, but ext[34] should be OK because we do
metadata copy anyway because of journalling. So for ext[34] you shouldn't
need any additional metadata protection since JBD does it for you (apart
from nojournal mode of ext4 of course).

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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-24 17:45    [W:0.105 / U:1.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site