On Jan 17, 2008 5:15 PM, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:43PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
> > Hi y'all,
> >
> > This is a request for comments on the rewrite of the e2fsck IO
> > parallelization patches I sent out a few months ago. The mechanism is
> > tot
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:43PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
> Hi y'all,
>
> This is a request for comments on the rewrite of the e2fsck IO
> parallelization patches I sent out a few months ago. The mechanism is
> totally different. Previously IO was parallelized by issuing IOs from
> multipl
Vous m'avez dit récemment :
as well for this one,
> --- a/fs/ext4/ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ioctl.c
> @@ -17,12 +17,18 @@
> #include
> #include
>
> -int ext4_ioctl (struct inode * inode, struct file * filp, unsigned int cmd,
> - unsigned long arg)
> +long ext4_ioctl(struct file *f
Vous m'avez dit récemment :
> --- a/fs/ext3/ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/ext3/ioctl.c
> @@ -17,12 +17,19 @@
> #include
> #include
>
> -int ext3_ioctl (struct inode * inode, struct file * filp, unsigned int cmd,
> +long ext3_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
> unsigned long arg)
On (17/01/08 13:50), Martin Knoblauch didst pronounce:
> >
>
> The effect is defintely depending on the IO hardware. I performed the
> same tests
> on a different box with an AACRAID controller and there things look different.
I take it different also means it does not show this odd perfo
- Original Message
> From: Mel Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike Snitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Peter
> Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "l
On (17/01/08 09:44), Martin Knoblauch didst pronounce:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:26:41AM -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> > > > > > For those interested in using your writeback improvements in
> > > > > > production sooner rather than later (primarily with ext3); what
> > > > > > rec
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 21:59 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:09:41PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> > Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> >>> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> What about this ? I guess we will ove
Ported from JBD changes from Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:21:26 + (-0800)
Subject: [PATCH] user of the jiffies rounding code: JBD
X-Git-Tag: v2.6.20-rc1~15^2~43
X-Git-Url:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux%2Fkernel%2Fgi
Ported from upstream jbd changes to jbd2
sparse pointer use of zero as null
Get rid of sparse related warnings from places that use integer as NULL
pointer.
Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 12 ++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletion
JBD2: Group short-lived and reclaimable kernel allocations
From: Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ported from JBD to JBD2
From: Mel Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:25:52 + (-0700)
Subject: Group short-lived and reclaimable kernel allocation
Hi Andrew, Ted,
I walked through the linus's git tree history and found 4 patches should
port from ext3/jbd to ext4/jbd2, since the day ext4 was forked
(2006.10.11) to today. I have already queued the ported patches in ext4
patch queue and verified they seems fine. Here is the first one.
jbd2:
- Original Message
> From: Mike Snitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" ; Lin
- Original Message
> From: Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Mike Snitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" ; Lin
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:09:41PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
>>> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start << bsbits;
>>> Hi Aneesh,
>>> your patch bel
On Jan 17, 2008 8:52 AM, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: Mike Snitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Mol
- Original Message
> From: Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Mike Snitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" ; Lin
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start << bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
loff_t, start_off = ac->ac_o_
On Jan 15, 2008 10:28 AM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, it's not just reducing fsck times, although that's the main one.
> The last time this was suggested, the rationale was to speed up the
> "rm dvd.iso" case. Also, something which *could* be done, if Abhishek
> wants to pursue
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext3/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext3/file.c |2 +-
fs/ext3/ioctl.c | 161 ---
include/linux/ext3_fs.h |3 +-
4 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
diff -
Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
exposing BKL's uses.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext2/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext2/ext2.h |3 +-
fs/ext2/file.c |4 +-
fs/ext2/ioctl.c | 103 +--
4 fi
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext4/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext4/file.c |2 +-
fs/ext4/ioctl.c | 161 ---
include/linux/ext4_fs.h |3 +-
4 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
diff -
Vous m'avez dit récemment :
> On Thursday 17 January 2008, Mathieu SEGAUD wrote:
>> yep, they do. I noticed this nested calls. I guess I will add
>> _extX_compat_ioctl() running with no BKL's which would be used by both
>> extX_ioctl() and extX_compat_ioctl().
>> Any comments on such a strategy ?
On Thursday 17 January 2008, Mathieu SEGAUD wrote:
> yep, they do. I noticed this nested calls. I guess I will add
> _extX_compat_ioctl() running with no BKL's which would be used by both
> extX_ioctl() and extX_compat_ioctl().
> Any comments on such a strategy ? thanks a lot for the reminder :)
>
Vous m'avez dit récemment :
> Vous m'avez dit récemment :
>
>> On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote:
>>>
>>> Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
>>> exposing BKL's uses.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> You are now calling lock_kernel() twice
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start << bsbits;
>>
>
> Hi Aneesh,
> your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
> loff_t, start_off = ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start << bsbits;
>>
>
> Hi Aneesh,
> your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
> loff_t, start_off = ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical
Vous m'avez dit récemment :
> On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote:
>>
>> Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
>> exposing BKL's uses.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of ext2_compat_ioctl(),
> which
On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote:
>
> Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
> exposing BKL's uses.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of ext2_compat_ioctl(),
which calls back into ext2_ioctl with the BKL
On Jan 15, 2008 23:25 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've got multiple boxes across the hall that have 50T of disk on them, in one
> case as one large filesystem, and the users want *more* *bigger* still (damned
> researchers - you put a 15 teraflop supercomputer in the room, and then they
> wa
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext3/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext3/file.c |2 +-
fs/ext3/ioctl.c | 159 --
include/linux/ext3_fs.h |3 +-
4 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
diff --
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext4/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext4/file.c |2 +-
fs/ext4/ioctl.c | 159 ---
include/linux/ext4_fs.h |3 +-
4 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff -
Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
exposing BKL's uses.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext2/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext2/ext2.h |3 +-
fs/ext2/file.c |4 +-
fs/ext2/ioctl.c | 101 +-
4 fil
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow
start = start << bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
loff_t, start_off = ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical << bsbits also overflows.
I guess start should be of type loff_t. Patch
> On Jan 16, 2008 9:15 AM, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fengguang's latest writeback patch applies cleanly, builds, boots on
> 2.6.24-rc8.
Linus, if possible, I'd suggest this patch be merged for 2.6.24.
It's a safer version of the reverted patch. It was tested on
ext2/ext3/jfs/
35 matches
Mail list logo
