From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@openvz.org>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: EXT4 nodelalloc => back to stone age.
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:00:33 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5159AF21.1050805@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130401153952.GE4731@thunk.org>
On 4/1/13 10:39 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:18:51AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> I'd add:
>>
>> 3) Why do we have a "nodelalloc" mount option at all?
>>
>> but then I thought:
>>
>> Is it also this bad when using the ext4 driver to run an ext3 fs?
>
> Yes, and I there would be a similar performance problem if you are
> using the ext3 file system driver, since ext3_*_writepage() also ends
> up calling block_write_full_page() which will also result in the
> writes happening with WRITE_SYNC.
> The main reason why we keep nodelalloc at this point is bug-for-bug
> compatibility with ext3 file systems --- basically, for users who are
> using this as a workaround for the O_PONIES issue instead of fixing
> their applications to use fsync() appropriately.
Sorry for getting off the original thread here, but IMHO these are
2 different things:
nondelalloc behavior makes sense for ext3, but:
-o nodelalloc mount options don't make sense for ext4.
> So another question is how much do we care about exact emulation of
> ext3's behaviour for those distributions who wish to use ext4 file
> system driver for ext2 and ext3 file systems?
>
> One of the reasons for keeping nodealloc mode was the argument was
> that it removing it wouldn't really allow us to remove that much
> complexity from ext4.
IMHO we should keep the mode for ext2/3, but lose the ext4 option.
It'd just be one less row in the ext4 test matrix.
-Eric
> But adding a nodealloc specific ext4_writepages
> pages would result in adding a huge amount of complexity, and my first
> reaction is that it's really not worth the code maintenance headache.
> Dmitry, is there a reason why you are especially worried about the
> performace of nodelalloc mode?
>
> - Ted
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-01 16:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-01 11:06 EXT4 nodelalloc => back to stone age Dmitry Monakhov
2013-04-01 15:18 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-04-01 15:39 ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-04-01 16:00 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2013-04-01 16:34 ` Zheng Liu
2013-04-01 15:45 ` Chris Mason
2013-04-01 15:57 ` Chris Mason
2013-04-02 13:46 ` 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=5159AF21.1050805@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dmonakhov@openvz.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@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).