[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <494AFA16.2010004@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:34:14 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: Arthur Jones <ajones@...erbed.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"sct@...hat.com" <sct@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext3: wait on all pending commits in ext3_sync_fs
Jan Kara wrote:
>> In looking at what we have today, I wonder if we can make things smarter
>> so that we don't commit empty transactions in any case?
> Probably it does not make sence to commit such transactions and we might
> save some time in sync paths if we do so. So yes, I think skipping empty
> transaction commit might be worthwhile and it shouldn't be hard to do
> either. But I'd give it serious testing just in case some unexpectedly
> relies on this behaviour - wouldn't this interfere e.g. with sync
> transaction batching autotuning code? Untested patch below...
> Honza
Cool, thanks! This's stop:
# sync
from spinning up disks under idle filesystems too, I think.
I was looking at something similar but was still working out how many
things to check before deciding if the transaction was in fact empty. :)
-Eric
--
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