On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:12:28AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 12:11 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Here's another patch (explanation below). This patch replies upon > > a DLM patch that hasn't fully gone upstream yet, so perhaps it > > shouldn't be added to the nmw tree until it is. This greatly > > improves the performance of gfs2_grow in a clustered gfs2 file system. > > > > Regards, > > > I'm still not very keen on dragging in this bit of dlm. If it is really > needed, then we should use the copy in the dlm itself and not add our > own copy of it.
The table is equivalent to: (rq_mode > gr_mode) || (gr_mode == PR && rq_mode == CW) > When you say that this relies upon this dlm patch, what does that mean? > What are the consequences of having this patch but not the dlm one? I'm > wondering whether I should hold off on this at least until the dlm one > has been finalised and applied. Yeah, using QUECVT everywhere will make things worse until it's fixed.
