[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1308142316220.31947@nftneq.ynat.uz>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@...g.hm>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
xfs@....sgi.com,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs)
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> The big problem with this approach is that not doing the
>> timestamp update on page faults is going to break the inode change
>> version counting because for ext4, btrfs and XFS it takes a
>> transaction to bump that counter. NFS needs to know the moment a
>> file is changed in memory, not when it is written to disk. Also, NFS
>> requires the change to the counter to be persistent over server
>> failures, so it needs to be changed as part of a transaction....
>
> NFS can do whatever it wants, although I suspect that even NFS can get
> away with deferring cmtime updates.
NFS already has to do syncs to make sure the data is safe on disk, have a flag
that NFS can use to make the ctime safe, everyone else can get the performance
improvement and NFS can have it's slow-but-safe approach.
David Lang
--
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