[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1332254489-2300-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:41:20 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Ext4 Mailing List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Maling List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v1 0/9] do not use s_dirt in ext4
This patch-set makes ext4 independent of the VFS superblock management
services. Namely, ext4 does not require to register the 'write_super()' VFS
call-back.
The reason of this exercises is to get rid of the 'sync_supers()' kernel thread
which wakes up every 5 seconds (by default) even if all superblocks are clean.
This is wasteful from power management POW (unnecessary wake-ups).
Note, I tried to optimize 'sync_supers()' instead in 2010, but Al wanted me
to get rid of it instead. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/6/87
And I think this is right because many file-systems do not need this, for
example btrfs does not use VFS superblock management services at all, so on a
btrfs-based system we currently end-up useless periodic wake-ups source.
Changes for other file-systems are coming later.
The patch-set structure.
1. patches 1,2,3 are independent ext4 cleanups and I ask Ted to merge them as
soon/long as they are OK. I sent them also independently in order to get
early comments, but did not get so far, so re-sending.
2. patch 4 exports 'dirty_writeback_interval' and it would be very useful to
have it merged ASAP to simplify further work
3. patch 5 is also and independent VFS clean-up
4. patches 6-9 actually make ext4 independent on the 'sync_supers()' thread.
Thanks,
Artem.
--
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