All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@phunq.net>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tux3@tux3.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Tux3] Tux3 report: Tux3 Git tree available
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:08:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200903142108.53155.phillips@phunq.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200903151450.51726.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>

On Saturday 14 March 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sunday 15 March 2009 14:24:29 Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > I expect implementing VM extents to be a brutally complex project, as
> > filesystem extents always turn out to be, even though one tends to
> > enter such projects thinking, how hard could this be?  Answer: harder
> > than you think.  But VM extents would be good for a modest speedup, so
> > somebody is sure to get brave enough to try it sometime.
> 
> I don't think there is enough evidence to be able to make such an
> assertion.
> 
> When you actually implement extent splitting and merging in a deadlock
> free manner and synchronize everything properly I wouldn't be surprised
> if it is slower most of the time. If it was significantly faster, then
> memory fragmentation means that it is going to get significantly slower
> over the uptime of the kernel, so you would have to virtually map the
> kernel and implement memory defragmentation, at which point you get even
> slower and more complex.

You can make exactly the same argument about filesystem extents, and
we know that extents are faster there.  So what is the fundamental
difference?

Regards,

Daniel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@phunq.net>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tux3@tux3.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Subject: Re: Tux3 report: Tux3 Git tree available
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:08:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200903142108.53155.phillips@phunq.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200903151450.51726.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>

On Saturday 14 March 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sunday 15 March 2009 14:24:29 Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > I expect implementing VM extents to be a brutally complex project, as
> > filesystem extents always turn out to be, even though one tends to
> > enter such projects thinking, how hard could this be?  Answer: harder
> > than you think.  But VM extents would be good for a modest speedup, so
> > somebody is sure to get brave enough to try it sometime.
> 
> I don't think there is enough evidence to be able to make such an
> assertion.
> 
> When you actually implement extent splitting and merging in a deadlock
> free manner and synchronize everything properly I wouldn't be surprised
> if it is slower most of the time. If it was significantly faster, then
> memory fragmentation means that it is going to get significantly slower
> over the uptime of the kernel, so you would have to virtually map the
> kernel and implement memory defragmentation, at which point you get even
> slower and more complex.

You can make exactly the same argument about filesystem extents, and
we know that extents are faster there.  So what is the fundamental
difference?

Regards,

Daniel

  reply	other threads:[~2009-03-15  4:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-11 16:25 Tux3 report: Tux3 Git tree available Daniel Phillips
2009-03-11 18:42 ` Andrew Morton
2009-03-12  5:38   ` [Tux3] " Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12  6:07     ` Andrew Morton
2009-03-12  8:33       ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12  8:47         ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-12  9:00           ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12  9:10             ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-12 10:15               ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12 11:03                 ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-12 12:24                   ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12 12:32                     ` Matthew Wilcox
2009-03-12 12:45                       ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-12 12:45                         ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-12 13:12                         ` [Tux3] " Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12 13:06                       ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12 13:04                     ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-12 13:04                       ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-12 13:59                       ` [Tux3] " Matthew Wilcox
2009-03-12 14:19                         ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-15  3:24                         ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-15  3:24                           ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-15  3:50                           ` [Tux3] " Nick Piggin
2009-03-15  4:08                             ` Daniel Phillips [this message]
2009-03-15  4:08                               ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-15  4:14                               ` [Tux3] " Nick Piggin
2009-03-15  2:41                       ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-15  3:45                         ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-15 21:44                           ` Theodore Tso
2009-03-15 22:41                             ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-16 10:32                               ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-16  5:12                             ` Dave Chinner
2009-03-16  5:12                               ` Dave Chinner
2009-03-16  6:38                               ` Theodore Tso
2009-03-16  6:38                                 ` Theodore Tso
2009-03-16 10:14                                 ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-16 10:14                                   ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-12 17:06                   ` [Tux3] " Theodore Tso
2009-03-13  9:32                     ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-12 17:00           ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2009-03-15  3:54             ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12  9:47         ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-03-12 10:25           ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12 15:30         ` Diego Calleja
2009-03-12 16:54         ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2009-03-15  3:36           ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-15  4:26             ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2009-03-12 13:24       ` Andi Kleen
2009-03-12 21:24         ` [Tux3] " Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12 23:38           ` Andi Kleen
2009-03-15  3:03             ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12 21:02     ` Roland Dreier
2009-03-15  4:02       ` Daniel Phillips
2009-03-12 16:18   ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2009-03-12 20:02     ` Andrew Morton
2009-03-12 20:46       ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2009-03-15  3:58         ` Daniel Phillips

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=200903142108.53155.phillips@phunq.net \
    --to=phillips@phunq.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matthew@wil.cx \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=tux3@tux3.org \
    /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.