From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p6J22FYO139888 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:02:16 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 2E8311E65070 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id IBF2oFANIEOudQjl for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:02:14 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: introduce an allocation workqueue Message-ID: <20110719020214.GB4259@infradead.org> References: <1310960989-10284-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1310960989-10284-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20110718160046.GA14094@infradead.org> <20110719012450.GG30254@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110719012450.GG30254@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:24:50AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Honestly, I'd prefer not to do that because it's a slippery slope. > I've got plenty more "do stuff in the background via workqueues" > patches lined up, so if we start adding knobs/mount options to turn > each of them off "just in case there's an issue". > > So far I haven't found any issues at all and I've been running this > split allocation stack like this in -all- my performance testing for > the past 2-3 months. I know that is not conclusive, but if the > bechmarks I've been using to improve XFS performance over the past > 18 months don't show regressions, that's fairly indicative of the > fact that most workloads won't even notice the change.... Maybe. One thing I'd like to see is stuff like high-iop direct or O_SYNC I/O that actually calls the allocator. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs