[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903271508520.3994@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: ext3 IO latency measurements (was: Linux 2.6.29)
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> Doable but not fairly simple ;) Firstly you have to restart a transaction
> when you've used up all the credits you originally started with (easy),
> secondly ext3 uses lock order PageLock -> "transaction start" which is
> unusable for the scheme you suggest. So we'd have to revert that - which
> needs larger audit of our locking scheme and that's probably the reason
> why noone has done it yet.
It's also not clear that ext3 can really do much better than the regular
generic_writepages() logic. I mean, seriously, what's there to improve on?
The transaction code is all normally totally pointless, and I merged the
patch that avoids it when not necessary.
It might be different if more people used "data=journal", but I don't
doubt that is very common. For data=writeback and data=ordered, I bet
generic_writepages() is as good as anything ext3-specific could be.
Linus
--
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