[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1108151747260.3695@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:50:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: remove deprecated oldalloc
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 15-08-11 16:21:27, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On 2011-08-11, at 8:58 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > > >> For a long time now orlov is the default block allocator in the ext4. It
> > > >> performs better than the old one and no one seems to claim otherwise so
> > > >> we can safely drop it and make oldalloc and orlov mount option
> > > >> deprecated.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is a part of the effort to reduce number of ext4 options hence the
> > > >> test matrix.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> > > >
> > > > ping
> > >
> > > I'm OK with removing this, I don't think anyone uses it, and it has almost
> > > no meaning with flex_bg anyway.
> > >
> > > That said, "orlov" is also mostly meaningless with flex_bg as well, since
> > > there is very little real benefit/affinity from inodes being "close" to
> > > their data blocks. We gain far more benefit from keeping the inodes
> > > together than spreading them out and keeping them close to the data blocks.
> >
> > What about removing it for ext3 as well ? I can prepare a patch.
> OK, let's start warning the option is deprecated and will be removed from
> ext3. We can remove it after 2-3 releases...
Is that really necessary ? It is not like we are removing a feature which
would not work anymore.
>
> > Also note that there is a bug in the OLDALLOC where if there is
> > approximately the same number of inodes in all of the allocation groups
> > it might result in the state where no group has less free inode count
> > than the average, hence we get ENOSPC even though there is enough space
> > for the inode to be allocated. It is unlikely, but it is there.
> Fix for this would be nice.
Will, I was kind of hoping that we will ditch that instead of fixing it,
but I can do that if it is not going away right now.
>
> > So Ted, could you take the patch ?
> ext3 patches go through my tree.
I know, the was meant to the patch that started this thread which is for
ext4.
>
> Honza
>
Thanks!
-Lukas
--
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