On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:26:55AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > Hi Dave and Darrick, > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:09:31AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:22:21AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 09:38:45AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:33:48PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > This is largely a repost of my current code so that Xiang can take > > > > > over and finish it off. It applies against 5.11.0 and the > > > > > performance numbers are still valid. I can't remember how much of > > > > > the review comments I addressed from the first time I posted it, so > > > > > the changelog is poor.... > > > > > > > > Yeah, I will catch what's missing (now looking the previous review), > > > > and follow up then... > > > > > > :) > > > > > > While you're revising the patches, you might as well convert: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > into: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > because Exchange is so awful for inline replies that I don't use that > > > email address anymore. > > > > Yeah, I'm just starting sorting out all previous opinions > > and patches diff. Will update in the next version. > > > > Sorry for bothering... After reading the previous discussion for a while, > I'm fine with the trivial cleanups. Yet, it seems that there are mainly 2 > remaining open discussions unsolved yet... > > 1 is magic number 1000, > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201029172045.GP1061252@magnolia > > while I also don't have better ideas of this (and have no idea why queue > depth 1000 is optimal compared with other configurations), so it'd be better > to get your thoughts about this in advance (e.g. just leave it as-is, or... > plus, I don't have such test setting with such many cpus) > > 2 is the hash size modificiation, > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201029162922.GM1061252@magnolia/ > > it seems previously hash entires are limited to 64k, and this patch relaxes > such limitation, but for huge directories I'm not sure the hash table > utilization but from the previous commit message it seems the extra memory > usage can be ignored. > > Anyway, I'm fine with just leave them as-is if agreed on these. FWIW I didn't have any specific objections to either magic number, I simply wanted to know where they came from and why. :) --D > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > > > Thanks, > > Gao Xiang > > > > > > > > --D > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Gao Xiang > > > > > > > >
