Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+1\/3\]\s+xfs\:\s+introduce\s+an\s+allocation\s+workqueue\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+1\/3\]\s+xfs\:\s+introduce\s+an\s+allocation\s+workqueue\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 1/3] xfs: introduce an allocation workqueue (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:49:47 +1000; We currently have significant issues with the amount of stack that allocation in XFS uses, especially in the writeback path. We can easily consume 4k of stack between mapping the page, manipulating t; /archives/xfs/2011-07/msg00443.html (12,262 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: introduce an allocation workqueue (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:00:46 -0400; I've mentioned before that I really don't like it, but I suspect there's not much of an way around it giving the small stacks, and significant amount of stacks that's already used above and below XFS; /archives/xfs/2011-07/msg00451.html (9,505 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: introduce an allocation workqueue (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:24:50 +1000; Honestly, I'd prefer not to do that because it's a slippery slope. I've got plenty more "do stuff in the background via workqueues" patches lined up, so if we start adding knobs/mount options to turn; /archives/xfs/2011-07/msg00459.html (11,694 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: introduce an allocation workqueue (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:02:14 -0400; Maybe. One thing I'd like to see is stuff like high-iop direct or O_SYNC I/O that actually calls the allocator.; /archives/xfs/2011-07/msg00462.html (10,582 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: introduce an allocation workqueue (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:14:29 +1000; What do you want me to run? I don't have any particularly high IOP hardware here, but I might be able to do something that just hits the BBWC.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2011-07/msg00468.html (10,969 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]