From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756582Ab3AUXLi (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:11:38 -0500 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:44682 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753838Ab3AUXLg (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:11:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:11:30 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Sedat Dilek Cc: Jan Kara , Eric Sandeen , linux-fsdevel , Ext4 Developers List , LKML , linux-next , mszeredi@suse.cz Subject: Re: jbd2: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily Message-ID: <20130121231130.GB12410@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Sedat Dilek , Jan Kara , Eric Sandeen , linux-fsdevel , Ext4 Developers List , LKML , linux-next , mszeredi@suse.cz References: <20130121104733.GE5588@quack.suse.cz> <20130121140738.GI5588@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:04:32AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > Beyond the FUSE/LOOP fun, will you apply this patch to your linux-next GIT tree? > > Feel free to add... > > Tested-by: Sedat Dilek > > A similiar patch for JBD went through your tree into mainline (see [1] and [2]). I'm not at all convinced that this patch has anything to do with your problem. I don't see how it could affect things, and I believe you mentioned that you saw the problem even with this patch applied? (I'm not sure; some of your messages which you sent were hard to understand, and you mentioned something about trying to send messages when low on sleep :-). In any case, the reason why I haven't pulled this patch into the ext4 tree is because I was waiting for Eric and some of the performance team folks at Red Hat to supply some additional information about why this commit was making a difference in performance for a particular proprietary, closed source benchmark. I'm very suspicious about applying patches under the "cargo cult" school of programming. ("We don't understand why it makes a difference, but it seems to be good, so bombs away!" :-) Regards, - Ted