Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 04:46:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
(whoa, can barriers make something faster? who woulda thunk it)
I sent this reply in response to the first Adrian's first e-mail, that
had bogus e-mail addresses for akpm and sct, so resending it here:
Sorry about that.
Have you actually benchmarked these patches, ideally with a fixed
filesystem image so the two runs are done requiring exactly the same
number of blocks to recover? We implement ordered I/O in terms of
doing a flush, so it would be surprising to see that a significant
difference in times. Also, it would be useful to do a blktrace before
and after your patches, again with a fixed filesystem image so the
experiment can be carefully controlled.
Yes the I/O is no faster.
The hacks just make the file system available for reading while recovery I/O
is ongoing.
Attempts to write are likely to block (even buffered I/O must wait for
locked buffers).
I will send some examples.
--
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
