On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 08:26, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 08:09 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 18:09, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is the 2.6.11-mm3 version of patch for adding "nobh" > > > > support for ext3 writeback mode. > > > > > > Care to update Documentation/filesystems/ext3.txt? > > > > Yes. I will do that. I am planning to add "nobh" support to > > ext3 ordered mode also, since its the default one. We need > > to modify generic interfaces like mpage_writepage(s) to > > keep track of bio count and make journal code wait for them etc. - > > at that point the "generic" code will no longer be generic. > > I am thinking of a way to do it *less* intrusively. > > > > At that point, we can make "nobh" default option. (which > > needs less documentation). > > I still don't get why you want a mount option. Sure during development > it can be nice.. but do you still want it in the production trees??
Once I get "nobh" working for both ordered and writeback mode - I will take out the option. Only reason why, you may want "bh"s are for faster lookups. "bh" stores the get_block() information, getting rid of it means - we need to do few more get_block() calls when we need the disk mapping. We have seen small amount of "reads" when we are doing write-only tests with "nobh" option. I am not at a point, where I can quantify the performance hit due to not caching the disk mapping info. Thanks, Badari - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
