On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:26:55AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:

Hi Dave and Darrick,

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:09:31AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:22:21AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 09:38:45AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:33:48PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

Hi folks,

This is largely a repost of my current code so that Xiang can take
over and finish it off. It applies against 5.11.0 and the
performance numbers are still valid. I can't remember how much of
the review comments I addressed from the first time I posted it, so
the changelog is poor....

Yeah, I will catch what's missing (now looking the previous review),
and follow up then...

:)

While you're revising the patches, you might as well convert:

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <redacted>

into:

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>

because Exchange is so awful for inline replies that I don't use that
email address anymore.

Yeah, I'm just starting sorting out all previous opinions
and patches diff. Will update in the next version.

Sorry for bothering... After reading the previous discussion for a while,
I'm fine with the trivial cleanups. Yet, it seems that there are mainly 2
remaining open discussions unsolved yet...

1 is magic number 1000,
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201029172045.GP1061252@magnolia (local)

while I also don't have better ideas of this (and have no idea why queue
depth 1000 is optimal compared with other configurations), so it'd be better
to get your thoughts about this in advance (e.g. just leave it as-is, or...
plus, I don't have such test setting with such many cpus)

2 is the hash size modificiation,
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201029162922.GM1061252@magnolia/ (local)

it seems previously hash entires are limited to 64k, and this patch relaxes
such limitation, but for huge directories I'm not sure the hash table
utilization but from the previous commit message it seems the extra memory
usage can be ignored.

Anyway, I'm fine with just leave them as-is if agreed on these.

FWIW I didn't have any specific objections to either magic number, I
simply wanted to know where they came from and why. :)

--D

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

quoted

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

quoted

--D

quoted

Thanks,
Gao Xiang