On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 11:42 -0400, jim owens wrote: > > Improved allocator threading > > I wanted to work on the allocator with a larger scope > where threading is only a minor part of trying to address Josef's allocator fix is on the list because we currently fall over in some workloads at 100% cpu time when the FS is 60% full. The space indexing is complex and strange, it just needs to be redone. > these items from the Project_ideas that I think could change > disk format in some way (to fix it before v1.0): > - Different sector sizes Sector alignment and sector sizes definitely need to happen before 1.0 > - Multiple chunk trees and extent allocation trees For these I was planning on only adding the disk format bits needed and leaving the code alone. > - Limiting btree failure domains > and maybe impacting this from Development_timeline > - Reserved space for online fsck and the ability to add > storage so that a background extent allocation check can proceed The reserved space is important as well. > > Maybe this is too ambitious or I am seeing intersections that > are not there, but I am prepared to try doing the allocator. > I'd love to have help on all of the above, and you're welcome to dive in and give it a shot. I'd say to pick one though, starting with smaller patches is going to be a good idea. > jim > > P.S. Are there other V1.0 format issues to lock down that > should be worked before the missing features like O_DIRECT? Yes, I'm trying to walk the line between having enough performance for people to do baseline tests (the results of which may force disk format changes) and pushing out the disk format changes. So, things that are very well understood like multiple copies of the super block or compat flags, I'm pushing off. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
