Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] hfsplus: stop using write_supers and s_dirt
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 16:09 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > I really do dislike dropping patches and replacing them. For a whole > bunch of reasons. One of which is that a wholesale replacement > requires a full re-review. Another is that wholesale replacement makes > it hard to see what was changed. I will keep this in mind and in future will send you incremental changes instead. Apologies Andrew. > This latest patchset is identical to the code which is presently in -mm. I am now away and cannot easily send you a diff between v2 and v3, but it really does have changes - exactly as I described - checkpatch.pl fixes (spaces replaced by tabs) and one line removed. Sorry for confusion, I really should have sent an incremental patch. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] hfsplus: stop using write_supers and s_dirt
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:09:51 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > > 2. removed 'cancel_delayed_work()' from 'hfsplus_sync_fs()' because it is > > not > >enough to just cancel the job, we need to set the work_queued flag to > > zero > >as well. I could do this, but it is simpler to just remove this tiny > >optimization - we do not gain much with it. I caught this bug while doing > >some more testing. > > And lo, when I look at "what was changed", I see that this patchset > actually does *not* remove the cancel_delayed_work() call. What's up > with that? Ah, no. I was looking at the cancel_delayed_work() in hfs_put_super(). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] hfsplus: stop using write_supers and s_dirt
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:26:27 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > Hi Andrew, here is v3 of the patches, could you please pick them instead of > the > ones you have in your tree? I really do dislike dropping patches and replacing them. For a whole bunch of reasons. One of which is that a wholesale replacement requires a full re-review. Another is that wholesale replacement makes it hard to see what was changed. > The differences to v2 are: > > 1. checkpatch.pl warnings fixed > 2. removed 'cancel_delayed_work()' from 'hfsplus_sync_fs()' because it is not >enough to just cancel the job, we need to set the work_queued flag to zero >as well. I could do this, but it is simpler to just remove this tiny >optimization - we do not gain much with it. I caught this bug while doing >some more testing. And lo, when I look at "what was changed", I see that this patchset actually does *not* remove the cancel_delayed_work() call. What's up with that? This latest patchset is identical to the code which is presently in -mm. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCHv3 0/4] hfsplus: stop using write_supers and s_dirt
Hi Andrew, here is v3 of the patches, could you please pick them instead of the ones you have in your tree? The differences to v2 are: 1. checkpatch.pl warnings fixed 2. removed 'cancel_delayed_work()' from 'hfsplus_sync_fs()' because it is not enough to just cancel the job, we need to set the work_queued flag to zero as well. I could do this, but it is simpler to just remove this tiny optimization - we do not gain much with it. I caught this bug while doing some more testing. This patch-set makes hfsplus file-system stop using the VFS '->write_supers()' call-back and the '->s_dirt' superblock field because I plan to remove them once all users are gone. Like some other similar patch-sets (affs, hfs, ufs, reiserfs), we switch to a delayed job for writing out the superblock instead of using the 's_dirt' flag. Additionally, this patch-set includes several clean-ups. Tested using the fsstress test from the LTP project. fs/hfsplus/bitmap.c |4 ++-- fs/hfsplus/dir.c|2 +- fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h |7 +-- fs/hfsplus/inode.c |6 +++--- fs/hfsplus/super.c | 46 +- 5 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) Reminder The goal is to get rid of the 'sync_supers()' kernel thread. This kernel thread wakes up every 5 seconds (by default) and calls '->write_super()' for all mounted file-systems. And the bad thing is that this is done even if all the superblocks are clean. Moreover, many file-systems do not even need this and they do not even register the '->write_super()' method at all (e.g., btrfs). So 'sync_supers()' mostly just generates useless wake-ups and wastes power. I am trying to make all file-systems independent of '->write_super()' and plan to remove 'sync_supers()' and '->write_super()' completely once there are no more users. Overall status == 1. ext4: patches submitted (v7) http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1326181/focus=2 2. ufs: patches submitted, https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/12/248 3. exofs: patch submitted, https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/4/211 4. sysv: patches submitted, http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/3/250 5. udf: patch sits in Jan Kara's tree: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/4/233 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-fs for_testing 6. affs: patches sit in Al Viro's tree: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/6/400 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs for-next 7. hfs: patches sit in Andrew Morton's tree (-mm, visible in linux-next) 8. hfsplus: patches sit in Andrew Morton's tree (-mm, visible in linux-next) 9. ext2: done, see commit f72cf5e223a28d3b3ea7dc9e40464fd534e359e8 10. vfat: done, see commit 78491189ddb6d84d4a4abae992ed891a236d0263 11. jffs2:done, see commit 208b14e507c00ff7f108e1a388dd3d8cc805a443 12. reiserfs: done, see commit 033369d1af1264abc23bea2e174aa47cdd212f6f Thanks, Artem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
