From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Kerin Millar <kerframil@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Backporting the concurrent direct IO write fix to 3.4
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 09:11:22 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120703231122.GB19223@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120703160949.GD855@infradead.org>
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 12:09:49PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 02:31:11PM +0100, Kerin Millar wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I recently became aware of commit 507630b2 (use shared ilock mode for
> > direct IO writes by default). I understand that this fixes a regression
> > which can have a notable impact upon MySQL performance. This is of
> > considerable interest to myself because my MySQL servers have to contend
> > with a really tough workload.
> >
> > The patch applies cleanly to 3.4 stable but is it actually safe to use
> > it there? Or does it depend on other changes to XFS, such that I'd be
> > better off holding out for 3.5? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
>
> You want the whole series starting at b4d05e3019692fc5a8c573fbce60de2d48c5b7a1
> without the earlier patches there are potential problems when using
> quotas.
>
> On the one hand I'd love to see these patches go into 3.4-stable as it's
> going to be a long term release,
Is it? So we will have long term support kernels for 3.0.x, 3.2.x
and now 3.4.x? 3.0.x is the long term stable kernel I'm targetting
for backports and there's no way I can really handle more than
that...
> on the other hand they are fairly
> invasive. If you can give a headsup after passing xfstests and heavy
> mysql testing including benchmarks it might make sense to consider them.
I've got to port them back to 3.0, so I'm not sure it makes
sense to port them to 3.4.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-03 23:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-03 13:31 Backporting the concurrent direct IO write fix to 3.4 Kerin Millar
2012-07-03 16:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-03 23:11 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-07-04 4:09 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-07-04 8:02 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-04 5:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120703231122.GB19223@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kerframil@gmail.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox