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 pBEIRqV4222972 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:27:53 -0600 Received: from mx2.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 2B1904D9431 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:27:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id qrsdkpelxO6cznkF for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:27:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:27:50 -0800 From: Mark Fasheh Subject: Re: xfs-trace-ilock-more Message-ID: <20111214182750.GH11114@wotan.suse.de> References: <20111214024040.GA17780@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111214024040.GA17780@infradead.org> Reply-To: Mark Fasheh 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jeff Mahoney , xfs@oss.sgi.com Hey Christoph, On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 09:40:40PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Can you explain the story behid this patch in SLES11SP1? We were looking at some performance issues and needed a bit more information on the amount of time spent in ilock. I can give you more specifics if you want, I just have to dig up the e-mails (it's been a while). Regards, Mark -- Mark Fasheh _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs