On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 08:23:00AM +0100, James Dingwall wrote: > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 08:18:12AM +0100, James Dingwall wrote: > >>Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>>On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 08:30:16AM +0100, James Dingwall wrote: > >>>>Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>>>>On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:24:51AM +0100, James Dingwall wrote: > >>>>>>Dave Chinner wrote: > >>>>>>>On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 11:20:44AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > >>>>>>>>Hi James, > >>>>>Hey folks, > >>>>>I am walking through my vacation-emails-mbox. > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 01:39:09PM +0100, James Dingwall wrote: > >>>>>>>>>In reference to: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-05/msg00046.html > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>$ grep -r cleancache fs/xfs > >>>>>>>>>on the 3.9 kernel source suggests that no patch was submitted to > >>>>>>>>>enable cleancache for the XFS filesystem. Since it was suggested > >>>>>>>>>that this could be a one liner I've had a go and my first effort is > >>>>>>>>>inline below. While this seems to compile OK I have no experience > >>>>>>>>>in filesystems so I would appreciate it if anyone can point out that > >>>>>>>>>it is obviously wrong and likely to eat my data before I try booting > >>>>>>>>>the kernel. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>If it seems a reasonable attempt what would be the best way to check > >>>>>>>>>that it isn't doing nasty things? > >>>>>>>>Hrm.. Looks like there is a doc in Documentation/vm/cleancache.txt which > >>>>>>>>includes a list of attributes the filesystem needs to have to work properly > >>>>>>>>with cleancache. > >>>>>>>So, those points are: > >>>>>>I had started to look at these too but I feel very out of my depth! > >>>>>>I had similar conclusions to what Dave wrote but I don't think my > >>>>>>thoughts should carry very much (any) weight. Anyway I gambled and > >>>>>>booted my xen domU with this patch and so far so good... xen top > >>>>>>shows that tmem is now being used where previously it wasn't. I'll > >>>>>>try running the xfstests at the weekend after a couple more days up > >>>>>>time to see what happens. > >>>>>And how did it go? > >>>>I am running the patch I created on 3.9.3 on half of my xen guests > >>>>now and have not noticed any stability or filesystem problems. xl > >>>>top with 'T' shows that the guests running with it are using > >>>>ephemeral pages were those without do not. I did do some runs with > >>>>xfstests which had some failures but they were present with and > >>>>without the patch. The best I can really offer is that it works for > >>>>me, ymmv. The patch is available as commit > >>>>c725011c4fc5d47e12d131f61bd91a58a40036b5 in > >>>>https://github.com/JKDingwall/linux.git xfs-enable-cleancache or in > >>>>the first message of this thread. > >>>Hey James, > >>> > >>>I've run this patch on my local tree and it looks to work right. I am > >>>saying "looks" as I am hitting some other issue that I believe are > >>>unralted to the patch - but I need to figure them out before I can > >>>comfortably say: "Yes, this looks right and works for me as well." > >>> > >>>Stay tuned. > >>Just to add that I have also had no observable problems running this > >>patch on 3.10.0 or 3.10.1. > >Yup. And I tested it as well. In other words if you would like to add > >Acked-by from me that would be super. Thanks! > My patch is now available in https://github.com/JKDingwall/linux.git > xfs-enable-cleancache as commit id > 6d50663e4ec88b7e1fd872b12ac310b1f4bb38c6. I have rebased it on 3.10 > with KRW's Acked-by and my Signed-off-by in the commit message. Is > it reasonable for this to be considered for 3.12 or would further > testing be required? I think that's sufficient. Send it to the list ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
