From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: jbd2: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:11:30 -0500 Message-ID: <20130121231130.GB12410@thunk.org> References: <20130121104733.GE5588@quack.suse.cz> <20130121140738.GI5588@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Kara , Eric Sandeen , linux-fsdevel , Ext4 Developers List , LKML , linux-next , mszeredi@suse.cz To: Sedat Dilek Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:04:32AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > Beyond the FUSE/LOOP fun, will you apply this patch to your linux-next GIT tree? > > Feel free to add... > > Tested-by: Sedat Dilek > > A similiar patch for JBD went through your tree into mainline (see [1] and [2]). I'm not at all convinced that this patch has anything to do with your problem. I don't see how it could affect things, and I believe you mentioned that you saw the problem even with this patch applied? (I'm not sure; some of your messages which you sent were hard to understand, and you mentioned something about trying to send messages when low on sleep :-). In any case, the reason why I haven't pulled this patch into the ext4 tree is because I was waiting for Eric and some of the performance team folks at Red Hat to supply some additional information about why this commit was making a difference in performance for a particular proprietary, closed source benchmark. I'm very suspicious about applying patches under the "cargo cult" school of programming. ("We don't understand why it makes a difference, but it seems to be good, so bombs away!" :-) Regards, - Ted