From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com (mail-pa0-f43.google.com [209.85.220.43]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2EC76B0038 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:46:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by pabrd3 with SMTP id rd3so19972078pab.5 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:46:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.parallels.com (mx2.parallels.com. [199.115.105.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lq9si10361773pab.61.2015.03.05.08.46.51 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:46:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:46:36 +0300 From: Vladimir Davydov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cleancache: remove limit on the number of cleancache enabled filesystems Message-ID: <20150305164636.GB4762@esperanza> References: <20150223161222.GD30733@l.oracle.com> <20150224103406.GF16138@esperanza> <20150304212230.GB18253@l.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150304212230.GB18253@l.oracle.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Andrew Morton , Boris Ostrovsky , David Vrabel , Mark Fasheh , Joel Becker , Stefan Hengelein , Florian Schmaus , Andor Daam , Dan Magenheimer , Bob Liu , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 04:22:30PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 01:34:06PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:12:22AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > Thank you for posting these patches. I was wondering if you had > > > run through some of the different combinations that you can > > > load the filesystems/tmem drivers in random order? The #4 patch > > > deleted a nice chunk of documentation that outlines the different > > > combinations. > > > > Yeah, I admit the synchronization between cleancache_register_ops and > > cleancache_init_fs is far not obvious. I should have updated the comment > > instead of merely dropping it, sorry. What about the following patch > > proving correctness of register_ops-vs-init_fs synchronization? It is > > meant to be applied incrementally on top of patch #4. > > Just fold it in please. But more importantly - I was wondering if you > had run throught the different combinations it outlines? Ah, you mean testing - I misunderstood you at first, sorry. Of course, I checked that a cleancache backend module works fine no matter if it is loaded before or after a filesystem is mounted. However, I used our own cleancache driver for testing (we are trying to use cleancache for containers). To be 100% sure that I did not occasionally break anything, today I installed XenServer on my test machine, enabled tmem both in dom0 and domU, and ran through all possible sequences of tmem load vs fs mount/use/unmount described in the old comment. Thanks, Vladimir -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org