On 2013-03-07, Akemi Yagi <amy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You may want to check this out: > > http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6087 > > My understanding is that "There is no side effect other than the load. > There are not performance issues with the ailds behaving like this." > Is this not the case ?
As far as I can tell, it is. I actually prompted Dave's quoted comment on the XFS list: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-11/msg00594.html So this would be a low priority task for me (as well as a learning exercise). If the patch were two lines I probably wouldn't bother. ;-) It is 99.5% cosmetic, but I have noticed that the ''baseline'' load, when there is no I/O, varies between 3 and 4, which makes it very slightly more difficult to interpret the load. That is my main motivation for bothering--if the baseline were more stable I probably wouldn't bother. (With fewer XFS filesystems mounted the issue is even less obvious.) > The wiki article: > > http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/BuildingKernelModules > > may not be quite up-to-date in that it does not reflect the kernel > version for CentOS 6 (2.6.32). But the principle is there. For > building your own modules, you can also download one of the kmod > packages from ELRepo and study how it's done. Perfect, thank you! If people are interested, and I do make the attempt, I will post my results. --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
