[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subject[PATCH v3 0/4] do not use s_dirt in FAT FS
    This is version 3 of the patch-set which makes FAT file-system stop using
    the VFS '->write_super()' method for writing out the FSINFO block.

    Fist version:
    Second version:

    Comparing to v2 - not much changes except that I fixed patch 3 and now only
    mark the fsinfo inode as dirty when there were some changes, as Hirofumi
    requested. I think it is OK to attach FSINFO to an inode, unlike Hirofumi
    would say, so this part is unchanged.

    Hirofumi, if you insist there is an issue, could you please again provide more
    details and we'd start the conversation over? I think my patches do not change
    ordering and even if they were, I do not see what would be the problem.

    Let me recap why I am doing this, and the current status of this exercises.

    The final goal is to get rid of the 'sync_supers()' kernel thread. This kernel
    thread wakes up every 5 seconds (by default) and calls '->write_super()' for
    all mounted file-systems. And the bad thing is that this is done even if all
    the superblocks are clean. Moreover, some file-systems do not even need this
    end they do not register the '->write_super()' method at all (e.g., btrfs).

    So 'sync_supers()' most often just generates useless wake-ups and wastes power.
    I am trying to make all file-systems independent of '->write_super()' and plan
    to remove 'sync_supers()' and '->write_super' completely once there are no more

    The '->write_supers()' method is mostly used by baroque file-systems like hfs,
    udf, etc. Modern file-systems like btrfs and xfs do not use it. This justifies
    removing this stuff from VFS completely and make every FS self-manage own

    Tested with xfstests.

    Note: in the past I was trying to upstream patches which optimized 'sync_super()',
    but Al Viro wanted me to kill it completely instead, which I am trying to do
    now, see

    Overall status:

    1. ext4: patches submitted, waiting for reply from Ted Ts'o:
    Ted keeps silence so far WRT the fate of this patch
    2. ext2: patches are in the ext2 tree maintained by Jan Kara:
    git:// for_next
    3. FAT FS patches discussion is ongoin on lkml and fsdevel

    TODO: affs, exofs, hfs, hfsplus, jffs2, reiserfs, sysv, udf, ufs

    fs/fat/fat.h | 1 +
    fs/fat/fatent.c | 22 +++++++++++++-----
    fs/fat/inode.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
    include/linux/msdos_fs.h | 3 +-
    4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)


     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-04 17:41    [W:0.022 / U:10.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site