From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH, 3.7-rc7, RESEND] fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:14:40 -0500 Message-ID: <20121207211440.GD29435@thunk.org> References: <1353366267-15629-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20121126025520.GC22858@thunk.org> <20121126091202.GO32450@dastard> <201212051148.28039.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <20121206120532.GA14100@infradead.org> <20121207011628.GB16373@gmail.com> <50C22923.90102@redhat.com> <20121207193019.GA31591@home.goodmis.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ric Wheeler , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , Martin Steigerwald , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Chinner , linux-fsdevel To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121207193019.GA31591@home.goodmis.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:30:19PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > How is this similar? By adding this bit, we removed incentive from a > group of developers that have the means to fix the real issue at hand > (the performance problem with ext4). Thus, it means that they have a work > around that's good enough for them, but the rest of us suffer. That assumes that there **is** a way to claw back the performance loss, and Chris Mason has demonstrated the performance hit exists with xfs as well (950 MB/s vs. 400 MB/s; that's more than a factor of two). Sometimes, you have to make the engineering tradeoffs. That's why we're engineers, for goodness sakes. Sometimes, it's just not possible to square the circle. I don't believe that the technique of forcing people who need that performance to suffer in order to induce them to try to engineer a solution which may or may not exist is really the best or fairest way to go about things. - Ted