From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o8LGMMv7018631 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:22:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/18] xfs: metadata and buffer cache scalability improvements From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20100921020203.GC2614@dastard> References: <1284461777-1496-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1284729700.5524.53.camel@doink> <20100921020203.GC2614@dastard> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:23:12 -0500 Message-ID: <1285086192.2024.17.camel@doink> Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: XFS Mailing List On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:02 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 08:21:40AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:55 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > This patchset has grown quite a bit - it started out as a "convert > > > the buffer cache to rbtrees" patch, and has gotten bigger as I > > > peeled the onion from one bottleneck to another. . . . > > All together, with the LRU code being reworked a bit w.r.t. stale > buffers and shrinker behaviour. > > In reality, though, i don't think that separating them into separate > series make much sense. The order they are in right now is > bisectable and fairly logical.... I have been thinking about this since sending it. I think my concern was not so much that they were all in one series. It's more about the fact that you are doing a number of non-trivial changes, all together. And as such my perception of the combined risk of committing them all at once is higher. So what I was probably after was somehow being able to verify each chunk of the series separately, spilling them out gradually rather than all at once. But in the end, I guess I agree with what you say. If we could get some parts--like those you say are standalone--committed earlier (and then out for wider exposure sooner) that would be good, but otherwise it's OK as a single series. I'll look for your next update, and will just wait for pull request(s) when you feel they're ready. -Alex _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs