* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation [not found] <1212331915-22856-1-git-send-email-tspink@gmail.com> @ 2008-06-02 1:58 ` Dave Chinner 2008-06-02 13:39 ` Tom Spink 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2008-06-02 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Spink; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel, xfs 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).... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation 2008-06-02 1:58 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation Dave Chinner @ 2008-06-02 13:39 ` Tom Spink 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Tom Spink @ 2008-06-02 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Spink, linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel, xfs 2008/6/2 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>: > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-06-02 13:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1212331915-22856-1-git-send-email-tspink@gmail.com>
2008-06-02 1:58 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation Dave Chinner
2008-06-02 13:39 ` Tom Spink
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox