[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1981a91e-30a9-43ce-9a05-14aa777e46a5@phunq.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:27:13 -0700
From: Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
To: Raymond Jennings <shentino@...il.com>
Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
David Lang <david@...g.hm>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, <tux3@...3.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [FYI] tux3: Core changes
On Friday, July 31, 2015 8:37:35 AM PDT, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Returning ENOSPC when you have free space you can't yet prove is safer than
> not returning it and risking a data loss when you get hit by a write/commit
> storm. :)
Remember when delayed allocation was scary and unproven, because proving
that ENOSPC will always be returned when needed is extremely difficult?
But the performance advantage was compelling, so we just worked at it
until it worked. There were times when it didn't work properly, but the
code was in the tree so it got fixed.
It's like that now with page forking - a new technique with compelling
advantages, and some challenges. In the past, we (the Linux community)
would rise to the challenge and err on the side of pushing optimizations
in early. That was our mojo, and that is how Linux became the dominant
operating system it is today. Do we, the Linux community, still have that
mojo?
Regards,
Daniel
--
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