[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121207211440.GD29435@thunk.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:14:40 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, 3.7-rc7, RESEND] fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate
UAPI
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:30:19PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> How is this similar? By adding this bit, we removed incentive from a
> group of developers that have the means to fix the real issue at hand
> (the performance problem with ext4). Thus, it means that they have a work
> around that's good enough for them, but the rest of us suffer.
That assumes that there **is** a way to claw back the performance
loss, and Chris Mason has demonstrated the performance hit exists with
xfs as well (950 MB/s vs. 400 MB/s; that's more than a factor of two).
Sometimes, you have to make the engineering tradeoffs. That's why
we're engineers, for goodness sakes. Sometimes, it's just not
possible to square the circle.
I don't believe that the technique of forcing people who need that
performance to suffer in order to induce them to try to engineer a
solution which may or may not exist is really the best or fairest way
to go about things.
- Ted
--
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