[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b9198260806020639n7679035s270c0ce3575a894b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:39:40 +0100
From: "Tom Spink" <tspink@...il.com>
To: "Tom Spink" <tspink@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation
2008/6/2 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 03:51:53PM +0100, Tom Spink wrote:
>>
>> (resend to include CCs)
>
> What cc's? Still no xfs cc on it. I added it to this reply....
>
>> This (short) patch series is another RFC for the patch that introduces on-demand
>> filesystem initialisation. In addition to the original infrastructure
>> implementation (with clean-ups), it changes XFS to use this new infrastructure.
>>
>> I wrote a toy filesystem (testfs) to simulate scheduling/allocation delays and
>> to torture the mount/unmount cycles. I didn't manage to deadlock the system
>> in my tests. XFS also works as expected aswell, in that the global threads
>> are not created until an XFS filesystem is mounted for the first time. When the
>> last XFS filesystem is unmounted, the threads go away.
>>
>> Please let me know what you think!
>
> Why even bother? This is why we have /modular/ kernels - if you're
> not using XFS then don't load it and you won't see those pesky
> threads. That'll save on a bunch of memory as well because the xfs
> module ain't small (>480k on i386)....
Yeah, absolutely. But if the filesystem is built-in, you can't unload it.
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
Thanks for taking a look, anyway!
--
Tom Spink
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists