On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:07:41AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > Hi James, > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 01:35:59PM +0000, James Dingwall wrote: > > Dave Chinner wrote: > > >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. > > I had a quick look through the 3.12 sources today and noted that > > this patch did not seem to get picked up. I'm still running with it > > and am now on 3.12 with no observed problems. I'm happy to rebase > > against 3.12 if required but it seems simple enough it should go on > > cleanly to the current development tree. > > It hasn't been picked up because I'm not quite convinced it's ok to do this. > See if you can get a Dave, Christoph, or Eric to offer a Reviewed-by with a > little explanation of why this is ok and I'll pull it in. ;) Like I said back in July, it's OK because they performed a substantial amount of testing like we asked them to it didn't show up any obvious regressions. Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
