From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan Subject: Re: Integration branch pushed out to btrfs-unstable Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:50:20 +0800 Message-ID: <4DDB7F5C.8050004@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1306179381-sup-443@shiny> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-btrfs , Miao Xie , Arne Jansen To: Chris Mason Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1306179381-sup-443@shiny> List-ID: Chris Mason wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've pushed out my current kernel git tree to a new branch called > integration-test. This is meant for integration testing only and should > not be run by anyone who doesn't love crashes. > > I've pulled together a lot of important work from a lot of different > people. It includes: > > The new inode number allocator > Delayed inode and directory item updates > Scrub, chunk allocator fixes > Races in device addition and removal > Josef's performance fixes > A large series of cleanups and fixes > > Most of the integration work was just pushing the cleanups into the new > code bits. I still want to integrate Hugo Mills' balance progress > ioctls (really nice). But it was a lot of work to get this all working > together and I wanted to let everyone retest the result. > > Miao, I didn't include your patch to delay inode item insertion because > I was worried about interactions with the caching thread of the new > inode number allocator. I did have to make a small change to make sure > the inode-map cache didn't go through the delayed item routines. > > Li, one thing I haven't done yet is a lot of benchmarking on the > performance hit from waiting for the cache to fill on large existing > filesystems. Was there any particular reason you didn't setup the > caching to pre-cache the from root->highest_objectid to > BTRFS_LAST_FREE_OBJECTID? > I'll cook up a patch for this kind of pre-cache.