From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:58:39 +1000 Message-ID: <20080602015831.GB2428@disturbed> References: <1212331915-22856-1-git-send-email-tspink@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Tom Spink Return-path: Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net ([203.16.214.57]:21662 "EHLO ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753339AbYFBB7Q (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:59:16 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1212331915-22856-1-git-send-email-tspink@gmail.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 03:51:53PM +0100, Tom Spink wrote: > > (resend to include CCs) What cc's? Still no xfs cc on it. I added it to this reply.... > This (short) patch series is another RFC for the patch that introduces on-demand > filesystem initialisation. In addition to the original infrastructure > implementation (with clean-ups), it changes XFS to use this new infrastructure. > > I wrote a toy filesystem (testfs) to simulate scheduling/allocation delays and > to torture the mount/unmount cycles. I didn't manage to deadlock the system > in my tests. XFS also works as expected aswell, in that the global threads > are not created until an XFS filesystem is mounted for the first time. When the > last XFS filesystem is unmounted, the threads go away. > > Please let me know what you think! Why even bother? This is why we have /modular/ kernels - if you're not using XFS then don't load it and you won't see those pesky threads. That'll save on a bunch of memory as well because the xfs module ain't small (>480k on i386).... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com