xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation

To: Tom Spink <tspink@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:58:39 +1000
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1212331915-22856-1-git-send-email-tspink@gmail.com>
Mail-followup-to: Tom Spink <tspink@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <1212331915-22856-1-git-send-email-tspink@gmail.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 03:51:53PM +0100, Tom Spink wrote:
> 
> (resend to include CCs)

What cc's? Still no xfs cc on it. I added it to this reply....

> This (short) patch series is another RFC for the patch that introduces 
> on-demand
> filesystem initialisation.  In addition to the original infrastructure
> implementation (with clean-ups), it changes XFS to use this new 
> infrastructure.
> 
> I wrote a toy filesystem (testfs) to simulate scheduling/allocation delays and
> to torture the mount/unmount cycles.  I didn't manage to deadlock the system
> in my tests.  XFS also works as expected aswell, in that the global threads
> are not created until an XFS filesystem is mounted for the first time.  When 
> the
> last XFS filesystem is unmounted, the threads go away.
> 
> Please let me know what you think!

Why even bother? This is why we have /modular/ kernels - if you're
not using XFS then don't load it and you won't see those pesky
threads. That'll save on a bunch of memory as well because the xfs
module ain't small (>480k on i386)....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>