Re: [PATCH] ext4: turn on i_version updates by default

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 01:33:40PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:27:42AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On 2012-05-14, at 9:23 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:02:12AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > >> On 2012-05-14, at 8:06, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>> knfsd needs i_version updates on, as will userspace nfs servers and
> > >>> probably others.
> > >>> 
> > >>> The only effects are that inode->i_version is bumped (under the i_lock)
> > >>> in more places, and that ->dirty_inode(I_DIRTY_DATASYNC) may be called
> > >>> more frequently than once per jiffy on write (see file_update_time).
> > >>> However the latter appears to be mostly a no-op in that case.
> > >> 
> > >> I thought this can have noticeable performance impact, since ext4_mark_inode_dirty() is quite heavyweight?
> > > 
> > > There's no reason it should be, should it, if we already just dirtied
> > > the inode a moment ago?
> > 
> > Ideally not, but the way ext[34]_mark_inode_dirty() is implemented
> > is that it copies the whole in-core inode to the on-disk inode every
> > time it is marked dirty.  That ensures that the on-disk inode is
> > up-to-date when the journal flushes the blocks to disk, but is not
> > an ideal implementation.  It has been this way since the first ext3
> > implementation was done.
> > 
> > As a result, dirtying the inode very frequently for ext[34] is
> > currently expensive and should be avoided.
> > 
> > I _think_ that the ext4 metadata checksum patches have changed this
> > to only flag the inode dirty and run a pre-commit callback to copy
> > the in-core inode to the on-disk inode.  I'm not sure what the
> > current status of that patch is, nor how easily it could be split
> > from that patch series and land separately.
> 
> I did some searching, found a couple of versions of the metadata
> checksum patches, but no patch that looked like what you're describing.
> Any idea where that is?

That _was_ going to be the basis of phase 2 of my metadata checksum patchset,
but since I've been moved to other projects, I don't see that on my plate in
the near future. :/

(tldr: It doesn't exist.)

--D
> 
> --b.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]


  Powered by Linux