xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Reiserfs and MMAP (was: How many people are using 2.6.16?)

To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Reiserfs and MMAP (was: How many people are using 2.6.16?)
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:42:48 +1100
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Lord <lkml@xxxxxx>, Bron Gondwana <brong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike Houston <mikeserv@xxxxxxxx>, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve French <smfltc@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Drake <dsd@xxxxxxxxxx>, samba-technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Vladimir Saveliev <vs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, reiserfs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070131070237.GT3754@stusta.de>
Organization: brong.net
References: <45BE5948.6060403@redhat.com> <20070129160448.65fc63f3.mikeserv@bmts.com> <20070129221300.GC19422@brong.net> <20070130203933.GJ3754@stusta.de> <45BFF1F4.3060401@rtr.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701301748230.3611@woody.linux-foundation.org> <20070131070237.GT3754@stusta.de>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 08:02:37AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> reiserfs:
> commit de14569f94513279e3d44d9571a421e9da1759ae
>   [PATCH] resierfs: avoid tail packing if an inode was ever mmapped
> backport to 2.6.16 required

Which would explain the "notail" I've been careful to cargo-cult
into every mount string since I started at this job, even though
we're storing mainly very small files.

Referring back to: <43BE1EDF.3010305@xxxxxxxxxxx> (which went
to reiserfs-dev and a couple of the ever-growing CC list above)
we're still not 100% sure if it's safe to remove the patch that
I attached there:

>>>>--- file.c~ 2004-10-02 12:29:33.223660850 +0400
>>>>+++ file.c 2004-10-08 10:03:03.001561661 +0400
>>>>@@ -1137,6 +1137,8 @@
>>>>return result;
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>>+    return generic_file_write(file, buf, count, ppos);
>>>>+
>>>>  if ( unlikely((ssize_t) count < 0 ))
>>>>      return -EINVAL;

which Hans asserted was about 5% slower than the resierfs custom
write implementation, but we countered at least meant that we
didn't crash in a steaming pile of processes stuck in D state
with no way out every few days.

It doesn't apply against 2.6.19 any more, which may be a good
sign.  I haven't seen anything in the changelogs that jumped
out at me as the fix though.

Regards,

Bron.


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