[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45D5D50F.5090100@bull.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:00:15 +0100
From: Cordenner jean noel <jean-noel.cordenner@...l.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: i_version_1_vfs_layer
Andrew Morton a écrit :
> This:
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/ext4-patches/2.6.20-ext4-1/broken-out/i_version_1_vfs_layer
>
> significantly deoptimises file_update_time() for major filesystems (eg, ext3).
>
> The changelog offers no reason for this alteration. In fact the changelog
> basically says nothing at all and needs a lot of work.
>
> What is this patch doing and why does it need to make that change?
>
Actually, this set of patches are still in progress. I recently profile
them. It shows that the CPU usage is really huge, so it has to be improved.
The i_version field is a counter that is set on every inode creation and
that is incremented every time the inode data is modified (similarly to
the "ctime" time-stamp).
The aim is to fulfill NFSv4 requirements for rfc3530.
For the moment, the counter is only a 32bit value but it is planned to
be 64bit as required.
The patch is divided into 3 parts, the vfs layer, the ext4 specific code
and an user part to check i_version changes via stat.
(cf http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/923)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists