From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756922Ab3BAOIn (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:08:43 -0500 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:46509 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756713Ab3BAOIl (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:08:41 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:08:37 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Sedat Dilek Cc: Ext4 Developers List , LKML , Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: ext4-next: Backport of jbd2 fixes? Message-ID: <20130201140837.GB1438@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Sedat Dilek , Ext4 Developers List , LKML , Eric Sandeen References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 10:33:04AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > Hi Ted, > > will those JBD2 fixes in ext4.git#dev [1] get also into mainline kernel(s)? > > [ Cut-n-paste out of tig ] > > 2013-01-31 13:00 Theodore Ts'o │ o jbd2: track request delay statistics > 2013-01-30 00:41 Theodore Ts'o │ o jbd2: commit as soon as > possible after log_start_commit <--- T-b-me (Linux-Next + 3.8-rc5+) > 2013-01-30 00:39 Eric Sandeen │ o jbd2: don't wake kjournald > unnecessarily <--- T-b-me (Linux-Next + 3.8-rc5+) > > I see no "CC: linux-stable"... and none of my Tested-by#s :-). I might be willing to add a cc linux-stable to Eric's commit, since it's pretty simple and it does fix a very long-standing performance regression. But technically these commits are intended to be ***performance*** improvements. The fact that your inherently dangerous use of using loop devices over FUSE happens to not deadlock when doing a suspend/resume after applying this patch is nice, but it is absolutely an unintended side effect. It doesn't change the fact that it's inherently dangerous, and it may break at any one time, and I would be surprised if kernel developers would be willing to stand behind this as as a supported configurations. If this is something Ubuntu is doing, and you have a support contract with Ubuntu, I suggest you ask them to look into this. - Ted