xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/18] xfs: metadata and buffer cache scalability improvements

To: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/18] xfs: metadata and buffer cache scalability improvements
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:34:03 +1000
Cc: XFS Mailing List <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1285086192.2024.17.camel@doink>
References: <1284461777-1496-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1284729700.5524.53.camel@doink> <20100921020203.GC2614@dastard> <1285086192.2024.17.camel@doink>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:23:12AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:02 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 08:21:40AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:55 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > This patchset has grown quite a bit - it started out as a "convert
> > > > the buffer cache to rbtrees" patch, and has gotten bigger as I
> > > > peeled the onion from one bottleneck to another.
> . . .
> 
> > 
> > All together, with the LRU code being reworked a bit w.r.t. stale
> > buffers and shrinker behaviour.
> > 
> > In reality, though, i don't think that separating them into separate
> > series make much sense. The order they are in right now is
> > bisectable and fairly logical....
> 
> I have been thinking about this since sending it.  I think my
> concern was not so much that they were all in one series.  It's
> more about the fact that you are doing a number of non-trivial
> changes, all together.  And as such my perception of the combined
> risk of committing them all at once is higher.  So what I was
> probably after was somehow being able to verify each chunk of
> the series separately, spilling them out gradually rather
> than all at once.
> 
> But in the end, I guess I agree with what you say.  If we could
> get some parts--like those you say are standalone--committed
> earlier (and then out for wider exposure sooner) that would be
> good, but otherwise it's OK as a single series.  I'll look for
> your next update, and will just wait for pull request(s) when
> you feel they're ready.

Ok, that sounds reaonable. I can split out all the stand
alone/cleanup stuff, and leave the functional changes to later. I'll
do a reorder later today.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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