On 11/25/2014 06:33 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I was concerned about putting them on the dirty inode list because it
would be extra inodes for the writeback threads would have to skip
over and ignore (since they would not be dirty in the inde or data
pages sense).
Another solution would be
On Mon 24-11-14 23:33:35, Ted Tso wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:52:39PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
Eviction is too late for this. I'm pretty sure that it won't get
this far as iput_final() should catch the I_DIRTY_TIME in the !drop
case via write_inode_now().
Actually, the tracepoint
On Mon 24-11-14 23:33:35, Ted Tso wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:52:39PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
+static void flush_sb_dirty_time(struct super_block *sb)
+{
...
+}
This just seems wrong to me, not to mention extremely expensive when we have
millions of cached inodes on
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:19:27PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
Actually, I'd also prefer to do the writing from iput_final(). My main
reason is that shrinker starts behaving very differently when you put
inodes with I_DIRTY_TIME to the LRU. See inode_lru_isolate() and in
particular:
/*
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:30:40PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
This would be possible and as Boaz says, it might be possible to reuse
the same list_head in the inode for this. Getting rid of the full scan of
all superblock inodes would be nice (as the scan gets really expensive for
large numbers
On Tue 25-11-14 12:57:16, Ted Tso wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:19:27PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
Actually, I'd also prefer to do the writing from iput_final(). My main
reason is that shrinker starts behaving very differently when you put
inodes with I_DIRTY_TIME to the LRU. See
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:33:35PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:52:39PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
+static void flush_sb_dirty_time(struct super_block *sb)
+{
...
+}
This just seems wrong to me, not to mention extremely expensive when we have
millions
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:59:22PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Add a new mount option which enables a new lazytime mode. This mode
causes atime, mtime, and ctime updates to only be made to the
in-memory version of the inode. The on-disk times will only get
updated when (a) if the inode needs
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:52:39PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
+static void flush_sb_dirty_time(struct super_block *sb)
+{
...
+}
This just seems wrong to me, not to mention extremely expensive when we have
millions of cached inodes on the superblock.
#1, It only gets called on a
Add a new mount option which enables a new lazytime mode. This mode
causes atime, mtime, and ctime updates to only be made to the
in-memory version of the inode. The on-disk times will only get
updated when (a) if the inode needs to be updated for some non-time
related change, (b) if userspace
10 matches
Mail list logo
