From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pBCDvgog101164 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:57:43 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 1B9A22B58E8 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:57:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CnxNxGAD4ujSU2tH for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:57:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:57:37 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 Message-ID: <20111212135737.GA16264@infradead.org> References: <20111211233929.GI14273@dastard> <20111212010053.GM14273@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Xupeng Yun Cc: XFS group On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:00:18AM +0800, Xupeng Yun wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:00, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Oh, of course, now I remember what the problem is - it's a locking > > issue that was fixed in 3.0.11, 3.1.5 and 3.2-rc1. > > > > Got it, thanks. Btw, I'd recommend to stay on Linux 3.0-stable instead of 2.6.38 or 2.6.39 as it will actively get all bugfixes backported for a while. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs