On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:42:09 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Below is my rewrite of ordered mode in JBD. Now we don't have a list of > data buffers that need syncing on transaction commit but a list of inodes > that need writeout during commit. This brings all sorts of advantages such > as possibility to get rid of journal heads and buffer heads for data > buffers in ordered mode, better ordering of writes on transaction commit, > simplification of some JBD code, no more anonymous pages when truncate of > data being committed happens. The patch has survived some light testing > but it still has some potential of eating your data so beware :) I've run > dbench to see whether we didn't decrease performance by different handling > of truncate and the throughput I'm getting on my machine is the same (OK, > is lower by 0.5%) if I disable the code in truncate waiting for commit to > finish... Also the throughput of dbench is about 2% better with my patch > than with current JBD. > Any comments or testing most welcome. Thanks for plugging away with this. Please change your patch preparation tools to always always include a diffstat, OK? fs/buffer.c | 3 fs/ext3/ialloc.c | 1 fs/ext3/inode.c | 118 +++++++++--------- fs/ext3/super.c | 2 fs/jbd/checkpoint.c | 1 fs/jbd/commit.c | 257 +++++++++++++---------------------------- fs/jbd/journal.c | 45 +++++++ fs/jbd/transaction.c | 288 +++++++++++----------------------------------- fs/mpage.c | 5 include/linux/ext3_fs.h | 1 include/linux/ext3_fs_i.h | 1 include/linux/jbd.h | 70 +++++++---- include/linux/writeback.h | 2 13 files changed, 326 insertions(+), 468 deletions(-) Would it make sense to turn this patch into a patch series sometime? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
