[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120924042512.GC6196@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:25:12 +0800
From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>,
Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/8 v2] ext4: add operations on extent status tree
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 02:34:52PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:05:39PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > + * 3. performance analysis
> > + * -- overhead
> > + * 1. Apart from operations on a delayed extent tree, we need to
> > + * down_write(inode->i_data_sem) in delayed write path to maintain delayed
> > + * extent tree, this can have impact on parallel read-write and write-write
>
> I'm working on going through this patch set now, and I'm not sure this
> is worth holding back on this patch series, but I am really concerned
> about the performance impact of this.... it would definitely show up
> on some of the scalability testing that Eric Whitney had been doing,
> for example.
Sorry, maybe I miss some mails. Could you please tell me where I can
find Eric's mail. Thanks.
>
> Given that operations on the delayed extent tree should be fast,
> instead of using a mutex, any reason why we can't just add a new
> spinlock (I'm not even sure we need a rw_spinlock here) to the
> ext4_inode_info structure and use that to serialize operations on the
> delayed extent tree?
Thanks for your comment. I will fix it.
Regards,
Zheng
--
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