From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m6N433AW018163 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:03:05 -0700 Message-ID: <4886ADB6.5060109@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:04:06 +1000 From: Mark Goodwin Reply-To: markgw@sgi.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes References: <1216556394-17529-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1216556394-17529-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20080722042829.GB27123@infradead.org> <20080722053019.GI6761@disturbed> <20080722072733.GA15376@infradead.org> <20080723000548.GG5947@disturbed> <488692FB.1010101@sgi.com> <4886A9A3.8090805@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <4886A9A3.8090805@sandeen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com Eric Sandeen wrote: > Mark Goodwin wrote: >> Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:27:33AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>> ... >>>> I only fear >>>> we'll never get it in with the current review and commit latencies >>>> for XFS :( >>> I can see this being a big issue in the not-too-distant future..... >> [getting off-topic for this thread, but anyway ..] >> This is already a big issue, obviously, and has been for some time. >> >> Internally, we're attempting to refine our patch acceptance processes, >> (e.g. gitify our internal dev tree and mirror it on oss so it's much >> easier to push back out to oss). But the QA overhead remains a stubborn >> problem. I think we're going to have to ask for QA tests (both regression >> and performance) to be written as part of the patch acceptance policy - >> under this policy, merely passing existing QA will not be sufficient. >> Comments? > > I think that'll depend very much on what the change is. For new > functionality, sounds good; for bugfixes with testcases, sounds good. and for cleanups, just run existing QA (new test wouldn't normally make sense). > For general algorithm improvements... how do you write a new QA test for > "Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes?" Case by case basis I guess. e.g. write a test that exercises or stresses the changed algorithm or functionality, especially corner cases (low space, full AGs, mem pressure, whatever). Performance regression testing is trickier - need access to suitable h/w and the historical data; so it's probably best run on dedicated h/w every night against the dev tree. > Or for that matter, my > remaining 2 shouting-removal patches ;) As above, just run QA for cleanups. > >> We have recently set up external access to a system for QA and >> regression testing for Christoph's use .. perhaps that should >> be a permanent offering? > > Sounds awesome, for serious contributors. I'd be happy to use it, too ;) > > -Eric > > -- Mark Goodwin markgw@sgi.com Engineering Manager for XFS and PCP Phone: +61-3-99631937 SGI Australian Software Group Cell: +61-4-18969583 -------------------------------------------------------------