On Tue 03-06-14 15:37:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:21:55 AM PDT, Jan Kara wrote:
> >On Tue 03-06-14 07:14:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:05:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >And I agree we went for per-bdi
> >flushing to avoid two threads
On Tue 03-06-14 15:37:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:21:55 AM PDT, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 03-06-14 07:14:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:05:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
And I agree we went for per-bdi
flushing to avoid two threads congesting a
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:21:55 AM PDT, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 03-06-14 07:14:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:05:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
...
So I agree per-bdi / per-sb matters only in simple setups but machines
with single rotating disk with several partitions
On the 3rd of June 2014 16:57, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:30:32AM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
In general, I do not believe that the complexity problems of soft updates,
atomic writes, and related techniques can be solved by hand/manually. So my
suggestion is to
On Tue 03-06-14 07:14:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:05:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > So we currently flush inodes in first dirtied first written back order when
> > superblock is not specified in writeback work. That completely ignores the
> > fact to which superblock
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:30:32AM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
> In general, I do not believe that the complexity problems of soft updates,
> atomic writes, and related techniques can be solved by hand/manually. So my
> suggestion is to automatically handle the complexity problem of e.g.
>
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:14:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Honestly I think doing per-bdi writeback has been a major mistake. As
> you said it only even matters when we have filesystems on multiple
> partitions on a single device, and even then only in a simple setup,
> as soon as we
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:05:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> So we currently flush inodes in first dirtied first written back order when
> superblock is not specified in writeback work. That completely ignores the
> fact to which superblock inode belongs but I don't see per-sb fairness to
>
On Tue 03-06-14 17:52:09, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:01:11AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > However, we already avoid the VFS writeback lists for certain
> > > filesystems for pure metadata. e.g. XFS does not use the VFS dirty
> > > inode lists for inode metadata
Dave Chinner writes:
>> It doesn't move inode to end of the dirty if wb.b_dirty is empty
>> (I.e. it can move from wb.b_io to wb.b_dirty too).
>
> Um, really? What code are you reading? From 3.15-rc8:
>
> static void redirty_tail(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> {
>
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:47:52PM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Daniel Phillips writes:
>
> > Hi Dave,
> > On 06/02/2014 08:33 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Redirty_tail nearly works, but "if (!list_empty(>b_dirty))"
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:01:11AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> On 06/02/2014 08:33 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >>> H - this is using the wb dirty lists and locks, but you
> >>> don't pass the wb structure to the
Daniel Phillips writes:
> Hi Dave,
> On 06/02/2014 08:33 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>> Redirty_tail nearly works, but "if (!list_empty(>b_dirty))" is
>>> not correct because the inode needs to end up on the dirty list
>>>
Hi Dave,
Here is a non-incremental patch. This implements your suggestion
from yesterday, except that the wb list lock is dropped before
calling ->writeback().
Regards,
Daniel
>From d030d328757b160b39b252e82811a94843513cfc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel Phillips
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014
Hi Dave,
On 06/02/2014 08:33 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Redirty_tail nearly works, but "if (!list_empty(>b_dirty))" is
>> not correct because the inode needs to end up on the dirty list
>> whether it was already there or not.
>
Hi Dave,
On 06/02/2014 08:33 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Redirty_tail nearly works, but if (!list_empty(wb-b_dirty)) is
not correct because the inode needs to end up on the dirty list
whether it was already there or not.
Hi Dave,
Here is a non-incremental patch. This implements your suggestion
from yesterday, except that the wb list lock is dropped before
calling -writeback().
Regards,
Daniel
From d030d328757b160b39b252e82811a94843513cfc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel Phillips dan...@tux3.org
Date: Tue,
Daniel Phillips dan...@phunq.net writes:
Hi Dave,
On 06/02/2014 08:33 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Redirty_tail nearly works, but if (!list_empty(wb-b_dirty)) is
not correct because the inode needs to end up on the dirty list
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:01:11AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 06/02/2014 08:33 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
H - this is using the wb dirty lists and locks, but you
don't pass the wb structure to the writeback
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:47:52PM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
Daniel Phillips dan...@phunq.net writes:
Hi Dave,
On 06/02/2014 08:33 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Redirty_tail nearly works, but if (!list_empty(wb-b_dirty)) is
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com writes:
It doesn't move inode to end of the dirty if wb.b_dirty is empty
(I.e. it can move from wb.b_io to wb.b_dirty too).
Um, really? What code are you reading? From 3.15-rc8:
static void redirty_tail(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb)
{
On Tue 03-06-14 17:52:09, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:01:11AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
However, we already avoid the VFS writeback lists for certain
filesystems for pure metadata. e.g. XFS does not use the VFS dirty
inode lists for inode metadata changes. They
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:05:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
So we currently flush inodes in first dirtied first written back order when
superblock is not specified in writeback work. That completely ignores the
fact to which superblock inode belongs but I don't see per-sb fairness to
actually
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:14:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Honestly I think doing per-bdi writeback has been a major mistake. As
you said it only even matters when we have filesystems on multiple
partitions on a single device, and even then only in a simple setup,
as soon as we use
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:30:32AM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
In general, I do not believe that the complexity problems of soft updates,
atomic writes, and related techniques can be solved by hand/manually. So my
suggestion is to automatically handle the complexity problem of e.g.
On Tue 03-06-14 07:14:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:05:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
So we currently flush inodes in first dirtied first written back order when
superblock is not specified in writeback work. That completely ignores the
fact to which superblock inode
On the 3rd of June 2014 16:57, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:30:32AM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
In general, I do not believe that the complexity problems of soft updates,
atomic writes, and related techniques can be solved by hand/manually. So my
suggestion is to
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:21:55 AM PDT, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 03-06-14 07:14:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:05:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
...
So I agree per-bdi / per-sb matters only in simple setups but machines
with single rotating disk with several partitions
On the 3rd of June 2014 05:39, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:30:07AM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
When I followed the advice of Dave Chinner:
"We're not going to merge that page forking stuff (like you were
told at LSF 2013 more than a year ago:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:30:07AM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
> When I followed the advice of Dave Chinner:
> "We're not going to merge that page forking stuff (like you were
> told at LSF 2013 more than a year ago:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/548091/) without rigorous design review and
> a
[ please line wrap at something sane like 68 columns ]
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On 06/01/2014 08:15 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 02:41:02PM -0700, I wrote:
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Add inode to writeback dirty list with current
On 06/01/2014 08:15 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 02:41:02PM -0700, I wrote:
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Add inode to writeback dirty list with current time.
>> + */
>> +void inode_writeback_touch(struct inode *inode)
>> +{
>> +struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode->i_sb->s_bdi;
>>
On the 1st of June 2014 23:41, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Hi,
This is the first of four core changes we would like for Tux3. We
start with a hard one and suggest a simple solution.
The first patch in this series adds a new super operation to write
back multiple inodes in a single call. The second
On the 1st of June 2014 23:41, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Hi,
This is the first of four core changes we would like for Tux3. We
start with a hard one and suggest a simple solution.
The first patch in this series adds a new super operation to write
back multiple inodes in a single call. The second
On 06/01/2014 08:15 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 02:41:02PM -0700, I wrote:
+
+/*
+ * Add inode to writeback dirty list with current time.
+ */
+void inode_writeback_touch(struct inode *inode)
+{
+struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode-i_sb-s_bdi;
+
[ please line wrap at something sane like 68 columns ]
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On 06/01/2014 08:15 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 02:41:02PM -0700, I wrote:
+
+/*
+ * Add inode to writeback dirty list with current time.
+ */
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:30:07AM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
When I followed the advice of Dave Chinner:
We're not going to merge that page forking stuff (like you were
told at LSF 2013 more than a year ago:
http://lwn.net/Articles/548091/) without rigorous design review and
a
On the 3rd of June 2014 05:39, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:30:07AM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
When I followed the advice of Dave Chinner:
We're not going to merge that page forking stuff (like you were
told at LSF 2013 more than a year ago:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 02:41:02PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> ---
> From: Daniel Phillips
> Subject: [PATCH] Add a super operation for writeback
>
> Add a "writeback" super operation to be called in the
> form:
>
> progress = sb->s_op->writeback(sb, , );
>
> The filesystem is
Hi,
This is the first of four core changes we would like for Tux3. We
start with a hard one and suggest a simple solution.
The first patch in this series adds a new super operation to write
back multiple inodes in a single call. The second patch applies to
our linux-tux3 repository at
Hi,
This is the first of four core changes we would like for Tux3. We
start with a hard one and suggest a simple solution.
The first patch in this series adds a new super operation to write
back multiple inodes in a single call. The second patch applies to
our linux-tux3 repository at
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 02:41:02PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
---
From: Daniel Phillips dan...@tux3.org
Subject: [PATCH] Add a super operation for writeback
Add a writeback super operation to be called in the
form:
progress = sb-s_op-writeback(sb, wbc, pages);
The
42 matches
Mail list logo
