Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] do not use s_dirt in ext4

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1437 bytes --]

Hi Ted,

the merge window is about to open and I am getting worried about this
patch-set - I won't have time to fix it if you indicate an issue...

On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 14:45 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> This patch-set makes ext4 independent of the VFS superblock management
> services. Namely, ext4 does not require to register the 'write_super()' VFS
> call-back.
> 
> The reason of this exercises is to get rid of the 'sync_supers()' kernel thread
> which wakes up every 5 seconds (by default) even if all superblocks are clean.
> This is wasteful from power management POW (unnecessary wake-ups).
> 
> Version 1 of this patch-set can be found here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/20/220
> 
> Changes between v1 and v2.
>   * Rake different strategy - instead of pushing 's_dirt' down "as-is" and
>     emulating old behavior, we now just submit the superblock for writing
>     straight away, either via the journal or directly. Thank to Jan Kara
>     for helping with this.
>   * Ted picked some of the patches already, which made this series shorter
>     - thanks!
>   * This time I've tested the changes using xfstests.
>   * Rebased to 3.4-rc1.
> 
> Note: Ted, you merged the "mm: export dirty_writeback_interval", but it looks
> like we won't need this for ext[23]. However, for other file-systems we will
> need this change.
> 
> Thanks,
> Artem.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]