On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:33:08AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08:20AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:55:30 +1000
> > David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:55:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:33:08AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08:20AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:55:30 +1000
David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:55:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:33:08 +1000
David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08:20AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if XFS can benefit any more from the general writeback
> > > > clustering. How large would be a typical XFS cluster?
> > >
> > >
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08:20AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:55:30 +1000
> David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:55:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:33:06PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:55:30 +1000
David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:55:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:33:06PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:18:41AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:55:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:33:06PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:18:41AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Notes:
> > > (1) I'm not sure
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:55:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:33:06PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:18:41AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Notes:
(1) I'm not sure inode number
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:55:30 +1000
David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:55:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:33:06PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:18:41AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:33:08 +1000
David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08:20AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
I wonder if XFS can benefit any more from the general writeback
clustering. How large would be a typical XFS cluster?
Depends on inode size.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08:20AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:55:30 +1000
David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:55:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:33:06PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:24:58 +0800
Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) s_dirty and s_io both become radix trees. s_dirty is indexed by
> > a sequence number that corresponds to age. It is treated as a big
> > circular indexed list that can wrap around over time. Radix tree
> > tags
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:33:06PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:18:41AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Notes:
> > (1) I'm not sure inode number is correlated to disk location in
> > filesystems other
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:42:01AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > My vague idea is to
> > - keep the s_io/s_more_io as a FIFO/cyclic writeback dispatching
> > queue.
> > - convert s_dirty to some radix-tree/rbtree based data structure.
> > It would have dual functions: delayed-writeback and
> >
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:13:41AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:47:23 +1000
> David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:42:01AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > I think we should assume a full scan of s_dirty is impossible in the
> > > presence
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:42:01AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
My vague idea is to
- keep the s_io/s_more_io as a FIFO/cyclic writeback dispatching
queue.
- convert s_dirty to some radix-tree/rbtree based data structure.
It would have dual functions: delayed-writeback and
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:13:41AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:47:23 +1000
David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:42:01AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
I think we should assume a full scan of s_dirty is impossible in the
presence of
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:33:06PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:18:41AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Notes:
(1) I'm not sure inode number is correlated to disk location in
filesystems other than
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:24:58 +0800
Fengguang Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) s_dirty and s_io both become radix trees. s_dirty is indexed by
a sequence number that corresponds to age. It is treated as a big
circular indexed list that can wrap around over time. Radix tree
tags are used
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:47:23 +1000
David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:42:01AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > I think we should assume a full scan of s_dirty is impossible in the
> > presence of concurrent writers. We want to be able to pick a start
> > time
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:47:23 +1000
David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:42:01AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
I think we should assume a full scan of s_dirty is impossible in the
presence of concurrent writers. We want to be able to pick a start
time (right now)
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:42:01AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> I think we should assume a full scan of s_dirty is impossible in the
> presence of concurrent writers. We want to be able to pick a start
> time (right now) and find all the inodes older than that start time.
> New things will come in
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:18:41AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Notes:
> (1) I'm not sure inode number is correlated to disk location in
> filesystems other than ext2/3/4. Or parent dir?
The correspond to the exact location on
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:18:41 +0800
Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:11:20 +0800
> > Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew and Ken,
> > >
> > > Here are some more experiments on
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:18:41 +0800
Fengguang Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:11:20 +0800
Fengguang Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew and Ken,
Here are some more experiments on the writeback stuff.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:18:41AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Notes:
(1) I'm not sure inode number is correlated to disk location in
filesystems other than ext2/3/4. Or parent dir?
The correspond to the exact location on disk on
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:42:01AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
I think we should assume a full scan of s_dirty is impossible in the
presence of concurrent writers. We want to be able to pick a start
time (right now) and find all the inodes older than that start time.
New things will come in
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:11:20 +0800
> Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew and Ken,
> >
> > Here are some more experiments on the writeback stuff.
> > Comments are highly welcome~
>
> I've been doing benchmarks
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:11:20 +0800
Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew and Ken,
>
> Here are some more experiments on the writeback stuff.
> Comments are highly welcome~
I've been doing benchmarks lately to try and trigger fragmentation, and
one of them is a simulation of make -j
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:11:20 +0800
Fengguang Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew and Ken,
Here are some more experiments on the writeback stuff.
Comments are highly welcome~
I've been doing benchmarks lately to try and trigger fragmentation, and
one of them is a simulation of make -j N. It
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:11:20 +0800
Fengguang Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew and Ken,
Here are some more experiments on the writeback stuff.
Comments are highly welcome~
I've been doing benchmarks lately to try and
Andrew and Ken,
Here are some more experiments on the writeback stuff.
Comments are highly welcome~
writeback fixes:
[PATCH 1/6] writeback: fix time ordering of the per superblock inode lists 8
[PATCH 2/6] writeback: fix ntfs with sb_has_dirty_inodes()
[PATCH 3/6]
Andrew and Ken,
Here are some more experiments on the writeback stuff.
Comments are highly welcome~
writeback fixes:
[PATCH 1/6] writeback: fix time ordering of the per superblock inode lists 8
[PATCH 2/6] writeback: fix ntfs with sb_has_dirty_inodes()
[PATCH 3/6]
32 matches
Mail list logo