> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:30:02 +1000 David Chinner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 03:04:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > fsck is single-threaded (hence no locking issues) and operates against the
> > blockdev pagecache and does a _lot_ of small reads (indirect blocks,
> > especially).
>
> Commenting purely about the above statement (and not on large pages
> or block sizes), xfs-repair has had multithreaded capability for some
> time now. E.g. from the xfs_repair man page:
>
> -M Disable multi-threaded mode. Normally, xfs_repair runs with
> twice the number of threads as processors.
>
>
> We have the second generation multithreading code out for review
> right now. e.g:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-06/msg00069.html
>
> xfs_repair also uses direct I/O and does it's own userspace block
> caching and so avoids the problems involved with low memory, context
> unaware cache reclaim and blockdev cache thrashing.
umm, that sounds like a mistake to me. fscks tend to get run when there's
no swap online. A small system with a large disk risks going oom and can
no longer be booted. Whereas if the fsck relies upon kernel caching it'll
run slower but will complete.
> And to top it all off, some of the prefetch smarts we added result
> in reading multiple sparse metadata blocks in a single, larger I/O,
> so repair is now often bandwidth bound rather than seek bound...
>
> All I'm trying to say here is that you shouldn't assume that the
> problems a particular filesystem fsck has is common to all the
> rest....
Yup. I was of course referring to fsck.extN.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
