Hi,
I just purchased my very first Mac, a 2011 Macbook Pro yesterday.
Now, I am intending to dualboot with OSX and Arch Linux on it,
however, I'd also be interested in accessing my BTRFSfilesystems from
under OSX.
I noticed that the btrfs-utils themselves seem to be in Macports:
http://www.macp
I understand that modern SSDs can withstand a significant amount of
writes, and so using an SSD for swap seems like a reasonable
proposition. However minimising writes still seems like a good idea.
My experience with compcache/ramzswap suggests that swap compresses
quite well, I tend to get a 4:1 c
Excerpts from Arne Jansen's message of 2011-03-25 16:53:24 -0400:
> On 25.03.2011 21:15, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Excerpts from Arne Jansen's message of 2011-03-25 16:14:35 -0400:
> >> On 23.03.2011 20:32, Chris Mason wrote:
> >>> Excerpts from Arne Jansen's message of 2011-03-23 09:06:02 -0400:
> >>
On 25.03.2011 21:15, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Arne Jansen's message of 2011-03-25 16:14:35 -0400:
On 23.03.2011 20:32, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Arne Jansen's message of 2011-03-23 09:06:02 -0400:
For the implementation I'd need an interface which I haven't been able
to find ye
Excerpts from Arne Jansen's message of 2011-03-25 16:14:35 -0400:
> On 23.03.2011 20:32, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Excerpts from Arne Jansen's message of 2011-03-23 09:06:02 -0400:
> >>
> >> For the implementation I'd need an interface which I haven't been able
> >> to find yet. Currently I can trigge
On 23.03.2011 20:32, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Arne Jansen's message of 2011-03-23 09:06:02 -0400:
For the implementation I'd need an interface which I haven't been able
to find yet. Currently I can trigger the read of several pages / tree
blocks and wait for the completion of each of th
* Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 16:50 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 14:13 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> > >> Turning try_lock into indefinitely spinning one breaks its semantics,
> > >> so deadl
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 16:50 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 14:13 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> >> Turning try_lock into indefinitely spinning one breaks its semantics,
> >> so deadlock is to be expected. But what's wro
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 14:13 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>> Turning try_lock into indefinitely spinning one breaks its semantics,
>> so deadlock is to be expected. But what's wrong in this scenario if
>> try_lock spins a bit before giving up?
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 09:10 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> One solution is to have this be only done on explicit trylocks. Perhaps
> introduce a mutex_trylock_spin()? Then when the developer knows that
> this scenario does not exist, they can convert mutex_trylocks() into
> this spinning version.
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 14:13 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> Turning try_lock into indefinitely spinning one breaks its semantics,
> so deadlock is to be expected. But what's wrong in this scenario if
> try_lock spins a bit before giving up?
Because that will cause this scenario to spin that "little
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 07:53 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Steven, Linus.
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:38:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > But now, mutex_trylock(B) becomes a spinner too, and since the B's owner
> > > is
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:41:51AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Adaptive owner spinning used to be applied only to mutex_lock(). This
>> patch applies it also to mutex_trylock().
>>
>> btrfs has developed custom locking to avoid excessive con
* Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:41:51AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > USER SYSTEM SIRQCXTSW THROUGHPUT
> > SIMPLE 61107 354977217 8099529 845.100 MB/sec
> > SPIN 63140 364888214 6840527 879.077 MB/sec
> >
> > On various runs, the adap
* Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:18:16AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > > NOT-Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
> >
> > s/NOT-// ?
> >
>
> Perhaps because it is still in RFC context?
Ok, i guess i was a bit too cryptic about it: the discussion was
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:41:51AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> USER SYSTEM SIRQCXTSW THROUGHPUT
> SIMPLE 61107 354977217 8099529 845.100 MB/sec
> SPIN 63140 364888214 6840527 879.077 MB/sec
>
> On various runs, the adaptive spinning trylock consistently pos
16 matches
Mail list logo
