[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1239742633.28321.39.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:57:13 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] ext3 data=guarded
Hello everyone,
Here is the ext3 data=guarded code again, this time it has passed some
basic tests. It should safely leave non data=guarded mounts alone and
only be dangerous when the new code is turned on (I hope).
On the performance side, it runs the same as data=writeback, except when
you're making files with holes where it runs the same as data=ordered.
There's definitely more CPU time involved with tracking the data=guarded
buffer heads and updating i_size when the IO is over, but at least on my
5 drive array that doesn't show up.
For the fsync + background streaming write workload, data=guarded does
fsync's in 0.8s, just like data=writeback. data=ordered on the same
test was doing between 5 and 30s per fsync, so it seems I've fixed that
part at least.
The next step is much more testing (blocksize != pagesize among others)
and much more review. But, I'm hoping for some feedback first on if
this is a direction we want to take the ext3 code.
The diffstat looks scary, but lots of the changes are comments...
-chris
--
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