From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o8LMXEi9032690 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:33:14 -0500 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 54C74182E8E0 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail14.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.99]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id I8NjTAeuHX0koOCJ for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:34:03 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/18] xfs: metadata and buffer cache scalability improvements Message-ID: <20100921223403.GD2614@dastard> References: <1284461777-1496-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1284729700.5524.53.camel@doink> <20100921020203.GC2614@dastard> <1285086192.2024.17.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1285086192.2024.17.camel@doink> 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: Alex Elder Cc: XFS Mailing List On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:23:12AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > 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. Ok, that sounds reaonable. I can split out all the stand alone/cleanup stuff, and leave the functional changes to later. I'll do a reorder later today. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs