Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC] [PATCH] Reducing average ext2 fsck timethrough fs-wide dirty bit]

[Andrew Morton]

Valerie Henson <val_henson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 05:55:03PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Valerie Henson <val_henson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > ext2 is simpler and faster than ext3 in many cases.  This is sort of
> > > cheating; ext2 is simpler and faster because it makes no effort to
> > > maintain on-disk consistency and can skip annoying things like, oh,
> > > reserving space in the journal.  I am looking for ways to make ext2
> > > cheat even more.
> > > 
> > 
> > But it might be feasible to knock up an ext3-- in which all the journal
> > operations are stubbed out.
> 
> Hmm... Could we get the mark_buffer_dirty/mark_inode_dirty logic
> right?

All things are possible ;) One might add a new
ext3_minus_minus_mark_buffer_dirty(), for example, put that in all the
right places.

>  Probably create a list in the stubbed journal functions and
> then mark them dirty in the journal close?  However, half the reason
> I'm working on ext2 is the simplicity of the code - stubbing it out
> would solve the performance problem but not the complexity problem.

Well ext3-- won't do anything to simplify the ext3 codebase.  It was just a
thought..

> Note that ext3's habit of clearing indirect blocks on truncate would
> break some things I want to do in the future. (Insert secret plans
> here.)

Ah.  I guess one would need to port the ext2 truncate code.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/