On 21.07.2011 07:44, Arne Jansen wrote:
> On 20.07.2011 19:21, Chris Mason wrote:
>> Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-07-19 13:30:22 -0400:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
>>> reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 05:36:09PM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
> (2011/07/20 16:58), Chris Mason wrote:
> > Excerpts from Tsutomu Itoh's message of 2011-07-19 22:08:38 -0400:
> >> (2011/07/20 2:30), Chris Mason wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and
Excerpts from Christoph Hellwig's message of 2011-07-22 11:01:51 -0400:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 01:30:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > We've seen a number of benchmarks dominated by contention on the root
> > node lock. This changes our locks into a simple reader/writer lock.
> > They are base
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 01:30:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> We've seen a number of benchmarks dominated by contention on the root
> node lock. This changes our locks into a simple reader/writer lock.
> They are based on mutexes so that we still take advantage of the mutex
> adaptive spins for w
On fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:06:40 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> On thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:53:24 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just rebased Josef's enospc fixes into integration-test, it should fix
> the warnings in extent-tree.c
>
Unfortunately, I got the foll
On thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:53:24 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Hi everyone,
I just rebased Josef's enospc fixes into integration-test, it should fix
the warnings in extent-tree.c
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I got the following messages.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jul 21 09:41:22 luna kernel: -
Excerpts from Arne Jansen's message of 2011-07-21 01:46:55 -0400:
> On 21.07.2011 02:48, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
> > (2011/07/21 2:21), Chris Mason wrote:
> >> Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-07-19 13:30:22 -0400:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch,
On 21.07.2011 02:48, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
> (2011/07/21 2:21), Chris Mason wrote:
>> Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-07-19 13:30:22 -0400:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
>>> reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
>
On 20.07.2011 19:21, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-07-19 13:30:22 -0400:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
>> reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
>>
>> We've seen a number of benchmarks dominat
Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-07-20 13:21:47 -0400:
>> Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-07-19 13:30:22 -0400:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
>>> reader/writer locking scheme for the btree lo
(2011/07/21 2:21), Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-07-19 13:30:22 -0400:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
>> reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
>>
>> We've seen a number of benchmarks dominated
Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-07-20 13:21:47 -0400:
> Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-07-19 13:30:22 -0400:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
> > reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
> >
> > We've s
Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-07-19 13:30:22 -0400:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
> reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
>
> We've seen a number of benchmarks dominated by contention on the root
> node lock. Thi
On 20.07.2011 08:55, Arne Jansen wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 19.07.2011 19:30, Chris Mason wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
I rebased my for-chris branch containing the readahead patches for sc
(2011/07/20 16:58), Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Tsutomu Itoh's message of 2011-07-19 22:08:38 -0400:
>> (2011/07/20 2:30), Chris Mason wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
>>> reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
>>
Excerpts from Tsutomu Itoh's message of 2011-07-19 22:08:38 -0400:
> (2011/07/20 2:30), Chris Mason wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
> > reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
> >
> > We've seen a number of benchmarks
Hi Chris,
On 19.07.2011 19:30, Chris Mason wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
> reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
>
I rebased my for-chris branch containing the readahead patches for scrub
to your integration-test branc
(2011/07/20 2:30), Chris Mason wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
> reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
>
> We've seen a number of benchmarks dominated by contention on the root
> node lock. This changes our locks into a s
Hi everyone,
I've pushed out a new integration-test branch, and it includes a new
reader/writer locking scheme for the btree locks.
We've seen a number of benchmarks dominated by contention on the root
node lock. This changes our locks into a simple reader/writer lock.
They are based on mutexes
19 matches
Mail list logo
