From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Don't do page stablization if !CONFIG_BLKDEV_INTEGRITY Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:36:30 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4F57FC14.5090207@panasas.com> <4F5837A2.8000306@panasas.com> <20120308154326.GA6777@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Sage Weil , Boaz Harrosh , "Martin K. Petersen" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: "Ted Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:38610 "EHLO rcsinet15.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758025Ab2CHQgi (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:36:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120308154326.GA6777@thunk.org> (Ted Ts'o's message of "Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:43:26 -0500") Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >>>>> "Ted" == Ted Ts'o writes: Ted> Martin, would you be willing to try to get your patch submitted for Ted> the upcoming merge window? Or I'd be willing to carry your patch Ted> and then rework Darrick's to use the exported flag, and carry it in Ted> my tree, maybe that would be better. There's probably going to be some conflicts due to both topology updates and the write same changes I have pending. So it's probably best that I submit this patch as part of my kits for Jens and James. Should go out today. Ted> why should we be inflicting pretty severe performance regressions Ted> for the common case, just to improve things for obscure high-end Ted> hardware? I'm perfectly ok with that now that we have established that there are real world workloads that do suffer with the wait in place. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering