On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:18:34PM +0800, zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> NOTE: >> >> The patchset is currently post out mainly to make sure >> it is going in the correct direction and hope to get some >> helpful comments from other guys. >> >> TODO List: >> >> 1.) Need to do scalability or performance tests. >> 2.) Turn some Micro into tunables >> TIME_TO_KICK, and HEAT_UPDATE_DELAY >> 3.) Rafactor hot_hash_is_aging() >> If you just made the timeout value a timespec and compared >> the _timespecs_, you would be doing a lot fewer conversions. >> 4.) Cleanup some unnecessary lock protect >> 5.) Add more comments to explain how to calc temperature > > 0) Documentation. > >> Zhi Yong Wu (11): >> vfs: introduce one structure hot_info >> vfs: introduce one rb tree - hot_inode_tree >> vfs: introduce 2 rb tree items - inode and range > > These three patches can probably just be flattened into one. > Splitting out the first two doesn't add to the clarity of the > series - add the structures in the patch that actually uses them > so we don't ahve to jump between patches to see how they are used. It make sense to me, OK, thanks. > >> vfs: add support for updating access frequency >> vfs: add one new mount option '-o hottrack' >> vfs: add init and exit support >> vfs: introduce one hash table >> vfs: enable hot data tracking >> vfs: fork one private kthread to update temperature info >> vfs: add 3 new ioctl interfaces >> vfs: add debugfs support >> >> fs/Makefile | 3 +- >> fs/compat_ioctl.c | 8 + >> fs/dcache.c | 2 + >> fs/direct-io.c | 10 + >> fs/hot_debugfs.c | 487 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> fs/hot_debugfs.h | 60 +++++ >> fs/hot_hash.c | 369 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> fs/hot_hash.h | 108 ++++++++ >> fs/hot_rb.c | 648 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> fs/hot_rb.h | 70 +++++ >> fs/hot_track.c | 113 ++++++++ >> fs/hot_track.h | 23 ++ >> fs/ioctl.c | 132 +++++++++ >> fs/namespace.c | 10 + >> fs/super.c | 11 + >> include/linux/fs.h | 15 + >> include/linux/hot_track.h | 169 ++++++++++++ >> mm/filemap.c | 8 + >> mm/page-writeback.c | 21 ++ >> mm/readahead.c | 9 + >> 20 files changed, 2275 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 fs/hot_debugfs.c >> create mode 100644 fs/hot_debugfs.h >> create mode 100644 fs/hot_hash.c >> create mode 100644 fs/hot_hash.h >> create mode 100644 fs/hot_rb.c >> create mode 100644 fs/hot_rb.h >> create mode 100644 fs/hot_track.c >> create mode 100644 fs/hot_track.h >> create mode 100644 include/linux/hot_track.h > > So, 9 new files for tracking all of this? I'm not sure that so > many new files are needed - putting it all in fs/hot_tracking.[ch] > might make more sense, or if all 8 fs/hot* files remain, putting > them in their own subdirectory might be an idea (like quota). If all functions are in two files, they will be large and the logic is not so clear. so i prefer the latter. thanks. > > I'll comment on the code when I get a bit of time to look at it. Great, very look forward to your more comments. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Regards, Zhi Yong Wu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
