From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B692929DFC for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:41:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5241CEE2.5040607@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:41:54 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] xfs: lookaside cache for xfs_buf_find References: <1378690396-15792-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <52404D7F.1080308@sgi.com> <20130924004803.GZ9901@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20130924004803.GZ9901@dastard> 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" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 09/23/13 19:48, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> On 09/08/13 20:33, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> From: Dave Chinner >>> >>> CPU overhead of buffer lookups dominate most metadata intensive >>> workloads. The thing is, most such workloads are hitting a >>> relatively small number of buffers repeatedly, and so caching >>> recently hit buffers is a good idea. >>> >> ... >> >> I think this needs more testing. > > Yes, that's what an "RFC" implies. It's an idea, it's not > fully baked and it's not ready for inclusion - it's a proof of > concept that needs further work, and I't being posted for discussion > to determine if it's worth pursuing further. > > Indeed, I haven't proposed it for inclusion yet because I'm > still finding problems caused by the patch - it's still just a > prototype at this point. > >> I got the same panic running xfstest 319 with the patch at: >> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-09/msg00578.html >> once it hung on a xfs_buf lock before the panic. >> >> And these are the only tests that I threw at this patch. > > Sure. The version I have in my stack at the moment has some more > ixes in it, like handling of length mismatches due to stale buffers > on lookaside lookups, and other such things. > > i.e. early feedback on prototype code is exactly what [RFC] patches > are for... And early feedback is that it has potential but needs more work. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs