Linux-BTRFS Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Qu WenRuo <wqu@suse.com>
To: "dsterba@suse.cz" <dsterba@suse.cz>,
	Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>,
	"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] btrfs-progs: Support for BG_TREE feature
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:19:54 +0000
Message-ID: <7c625485-1e2b-77f5-26ac-9386175e2621@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191016111605.GB2751@twin.jikos.cz>



On 2019/10/16 下午7:16, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 08:32:30AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> Have we settled the argument whether to use a new tree or key tricks for
>>> the blocgroup data? I think we have not and will read the previous
>>> discussions. For a feature like this I want to be sure we understand all
>>> the pros and cons.
>>>
>> Yep, we haven't settled on the whether creating a new tree, or
>> re-organize the keys.
>>
>> But as my last discussion said, I see no obvious pro using the existing
>> extent tree to hold the new block group item keys, even we can pack them
>> all together.
> 
> For me the obvious pro is minimum change to existing set of trees.

That's interesting.

And indeed, since we're dealing one less tree, there is no chance to
cause the bug mentioned by Josef.
> 
>> And for backup roots, indeed I forgot to add this feature.
>> But to me that's a minor point, not a show stopper.
>>
>> The most important aspect to me is, to allow real world user of super
>> large fs to try this feature, to prove the usefulness of this design,
>> other than my on-paper analyse.
>>
>> That's why I'm pushing the patchset, even it may not pass any review.
>> I just want to hold a up-to-date branch so that when some one needs, it
>> can grab and try them themselves.
> 
> Ok that's fine and I can add the branch to for-next for ease of testing.
> I'm working on a prototype that does it the bg item key way, it compiles
> and creates almost correct filesystem, so I have to fix it before
> posting. The patches are on top of your bg-tree feature so we could have
> both in the same kernel for testing.

That's great!

As long as we're pushing a solution to the mount time problem, I can't
be more happier!

Then I guess no matter which version get merged to upstream, the
patchset is already meaningful.

Thanks,
Qu

  reply index

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-08  4:49 Qu Wenruo
2019-10-08  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] btrfs-progs: Refactor excluded extent functions to use fs_info Qu Wenruo
2019-10-08  9:22   ` Johannes Thumshirn
2019-10-17  2:16   ` Anand Jain
2019-10-08  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] btrfs-progs: Refactor btrfs_read_block_groups() Qu Wenruo
2019-10-17  3:23   ` Anand Jain
2019-10-17  4:33     ` Qu Wenruo
2019-10-17  5:08       ` Anand Jain
2019-10-08  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] btrfs-progs: Enable read-write ability for 'bg_tree' feature Qu Wenruo
2019-10-17  4:56   ` Anand Jain
2019-10-08  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] btrfs-progs: mkfs: Introduce -O bg-tree Qu Wenruo
2019-10-08  8:16   ` [PATCH v2.1 " Qu Wenruo
2019-10-08  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] btrfs-progs: dump-tree/dump-super: Introduce support for bg tree Qu Wenruo
2019-10-08  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] btrfs-progs: check: Introduce support for bg-tree feature Qu Wenruo
2019-10-08  4:49 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] btrfs-progs: btrfstune: Allow to enable bg-tree feature offline Qu Wenruo
2019-10-17  4:17   ` Anand Jain
2019-10-17  4:28     ` Qu Wenruo
2019-10-14 15:17 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] btrfs-progs: Support for BG_TREE feature David Sterba
2019-10-15  0:32   ` Qu Wenruo
2019-10-16 11:16     ` David Sterba
2019-10-16 11:19       ` Qu WenRuo [this message]
2019-10-18 17:27         ` David Sterba
2019-10-19  0:04           ` Qu Wenruo
2019-10-21 15:44             ` David Sterba
2019-10-22  0:49               ` Qu Wenruo
2019-10-22  6:30                 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-10-22 12:23                   ` David Sterba
2019-10-22 12:27                     ` Qu Wenruo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=7c625485-1e2b-77f5-26ac-9386175e2621@suse.com \
    --to=wqu@suse.com \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
    /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

Linux-BTRFS Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/0 linux-btrfs/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-btrfs linux-btrfs/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs \
		linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-btrfs

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git