From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Linux FS Maling List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Mailing List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 3/5] ext4: remove unnecessary superblock dirtying
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:11:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120711101150.GH1316@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120711100726.GE1316@quack.suse.cz>
On Wed 11-07-12 12:07:26, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 11-07-12 12:58:16, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
...
> > And this is the behavior this patch modifies: we stop using 's_dirt' and just
> > mark the superblock buffer as dirty right away. Indeed:
> >
> > 1. It does not add any value to delay the I/O submission for cases 1-3 above.
> > They are rare.
> > 2. Case number 4 above depends on whether we have file-system checksumming
> > enabled or disables.
> > a) If it is disabled (most common scenario), then it is all-right to just
> > mark the superblock buffer as dirty right away and it should affect
> > performance.
> > b) If it is enabled, then we'll end up doing a bit more work on deletion
> > because we'll re-calculate superblock checksum every time.
> >
> > So case 2.b is a bit controversial, but I think it is acceptable. After all, by
> > enabling checksumming we already sign up for paying the price of calculating
> > it. The way to improve checksumming performance globally would be to calculate
> > it just before sending buffers to the I/O queue. We'd need some kind of
> > call-back which could be registered by file-systems.
Actually, the most common case of adding orphan inode used
ext4_handle_dirty_super_now() so for that case there is no difference. And
other cases are so rare it really does not matter... So there shouldn't be
any measurable difference.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-11 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-11 9:58 [PATCHv6 0/5] ext4: stop using write_supers and s_dirt Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 9:58 ` [PATCHv6 1/5] ext4: Remove useless marking of superblock dirty Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 9:58 ` [PATCHv6 2/5] ext4: Convert last user of ext4_mark_super_dirty() to ext4_handle_dirty_super() Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 9:58 ` [PATCHv6 3/5] ext4: remove unnecessary superblock dirtying Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 10:07 ` Jan Kara
2012-07-11 10:11 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2012-07-11 10:24 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 13:36 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 9:58 ` [PATCHv6 4/5] ext4: weed out ext4_write_super Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 10:08 ` Jan Kara
2012-07-11 9:58 ` [PATCHv6 5/5] ext4: remove unnecessary argument Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 10:09 ` Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120711101150.GH1316@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).