[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A5DF74A.8090607@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:35:38 +0300
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...ia.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
CC: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"sct@...hat.com" <sct@...hat.com>,
"adilger@....com" <adilger@....com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"Bityutskiy Artem (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] HACK: ext3: mount fast even when recovering
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 04:46:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> (whoa, can barriers make something faster? who woulda thunk it)
>
> I sent this reply in response to the first Adrian's first e-mail, that
> had bogus e-mail addresses for akpm and sct, so resending it here:
Sorry about that.
> Have you actually benchmarked these patches, ideally with a fixed
> filesystem image so the two runs are done requiring exactly the same
> number of blocks to recover? We implement ordered I/O in terms of
> doing a flush, so it would be surprising to see that a significant
> difference in times. Also, it would be useful to do a blktrace before
> and after your patches, again with a fixed filesystem image so the
> experiment can be carefully controlled.
Yes the I/O is no faster.
The hacks just make the file system available for reading while recovery I/O
is ongoing.
Attempts to write are likely to block (even buffered I/O must wait for
locked buffers).
I will send some examples.
--
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