From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
Linux FS Maling List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Mailing List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 3/5] ext4: remove unnecessary superblock dirtying
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:36:16 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1342013776.18274.52.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120711101150.GH1316@quack.suse.cz>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 12:11 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > So case 2.b is a bit controversial, but I think it is acceptable. After all, by
> > > enabling checksumming we already sign up for paying the price of calculating
> > > it. The way to improve checksumming performance globally would be to calculate
> > > it just before sending buffers to the I/O queue. We'd need some kind of
> > > call-back which could be registered by file-systems.
> Actually, the most common case of adding orphan inode used
> ext4_handle_dirty_super_now() so for that case there is no difference. And
> other cases are so rare it really does not matter... So there shouldn't be
> any measurable difference.
Actually, the entire "orphan" case uses 'ext4_handle_dirty_super_now()',
so this code-path is actually unaffected by my patch-set, so I do not
have to even worry about it. My changes affect only the
'ext4_handle_dirty_super()' users, and there are only 3 of them, and
they are extremely rare one-time events.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-11 13:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-11 9:58 [PATCHv6 0/5] ext4: stop using write_supers and s_dirt Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 9:58 ` [PATCHv6 1/5] ext4: Remove useless marking of superblock dirty Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 9:58 ` [PATCHv6 2/5] ext4: Convert last user of ext4_mark_super_dirty() to ext4_handle_dirty_super() Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 9:58 ` [PATCHv6 3/5] ext4: remove unnecessary superblock dirtying Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 10:07 ` Jan Kara
2012-07-11 10:11 ` Jan Kara
2012-07-11 10:24 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 13:36 ` Artem Bityutskiy [this message]
2012-07-11 9:58 ` [PATCHv6 4/5] ext4: weed out ext4_write_super Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 10:08 ` Jan Kara
2012-07-11 9:58 ` [PATCHv6 5/5] ext4: remove unnecessary argument Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-11 10:09 ` Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1342013776.18274.52.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com \
--to=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.