From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Tom Spink" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:39:40 +0100 Message-ID: <7b9198260806020639n7679035s270c0ce3575a894b@mail.gmail.com> References: <1212331915-22856-1-git-send-email-tspink@gmail.com> <20080602015831.GB2428@disturbed> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Tom Spink" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.232]:19031 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754319AbYFBNjp (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:39:45 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l9so1043740rvb.1 for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 06:39:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080602015831.GB2428@disturbed> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2008/6/2 Dave Chinner : > 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).... Yeah, absolutely. But if the filesystem is built-in, you can't unload it. > Cheers, > > Dave. Thanks for taking a look, anyway! -- Tom Spink