From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q63DVMG7094225 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:31:22 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com (mail-ee0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Rh2tF0OTfucV2JZX (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekc41 with SMTP id c41so2979252eek.26 for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FF2F41F.5000504@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:31:11 +0100 From: Kerin Millar MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Backporting the concurrent direct IO write fix to 3.4 List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com 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. Cheers, --Kerin _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs