Message ID | 20190614181619.64905-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | staging: erofs: decompression inplace approach | expand |
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for > merging soon... I'm still working on it, testing its stability > these days and hope these patches get merged for 5.3 LTS > (if 5.3 is a LTS version). Why would 5.3 be a LTS kernel? curious as to how you came up with that :) thanks, greg k-h
On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >> At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for >> merging soon... I'm still working on it, testing its stability >> these days and hope these patches get merged for 5.3 LTS >> (if 5.3 is a LTS version). > > Why would 5.3 be a LTS kernel? > > curious as to how you came up with that :) My personal thought is about one LTS kernel one year... Usually 5 versions after the previous kernel...(4.4 -> 4.9 -> 4.14 -> 4.19), which is not suitable for all historical LTSs...just prepare for 5.3... Thanks, Gao Xiang > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > >> At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for > >> merging soon... I'm still working on it, testing its stability > >> these days and hope these patches get merged for 5.3 LTS > >> (if 5.3 is a LTS version). > > > > Why would 5.3 be a LTS kernel? > > > > curious as to how you came up with that :) > > My personal thought is about one LTS kernel one year... > Usually 5 versions after the previous kernel...(4.4 -> 4.9 -> 4.14 -> 4.19), > which is not suitable for all historical LTSs...just prepare for 5.3... I try to pick the "last" kernel that is released each year, which sometimes is 5 kernels, sometimes 4, sometimes 6, depending on the release cycle. So odds are it will be 5.4 for the next LTS kernel, but we will not know more until it gets closer to release time. thanks, greg k-h
On 2019/6/18 13:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >> >> >> On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >>>> At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for >>>> merging soon... I'm still working on it, testing its stability >>>> these days and hope these patches get merged for 5.3 LTS >>>> (if 5.3 is a LTS version). >>> >>> Why would 5.3 be a LTS kernel? >>> >>> curious as to how you came up with that :) >> >> My personal thought is about one LTS kernel one year... >> Usually 5 versions after the previous kernel...(4.4 -> 4.9 -> 4.14 -> 4.19), >> which is not suitable for all historical LTSs...just prepare for 5.3... > > I try to pick the "last" kernel that is released each year, which > sometimes is 5 kernels, sometimes 4, sometimes 6, depending on the > release cycle. > > So odds are it will be 5.4 for the next LTS kernel, but we will not know > more until it gets closer to release time. Thanks for kindly explanation :) Anyway, I will test these patches, land to our commerical products and try the best efforts on making it more stable for Linux upstream to merge. Thanks, Gao Xiang > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:18:00PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > On 2019/6/18 13:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > >>>> At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for > >>>> merging soon... I'm still working on it, testing its stability > >>>> these days and hope these patches get merged for 5.3 LTS > >>>> (if 5.3 is a LTS version). > >>> > >>> Why would 5.3 be a LTS kernel? > >>> > >>> curious as to how you came up with that :) > >> > >> My personal thought is about one LTS kernel one year... > >> Usually 5 versions after the previous kernel...(4.4 -> 4.9 -> 4.14 -> 4.19), > >> which is not suitable for all historical LTSs...just prepare for 5.3... > > > > I try to pick the "last" kernel that is released each year, which > > sometimes is 5 kernels, sometimes 4, sometimes 6, depending on the > > release cycle. > > > > So odds are it will be 5.4 for the next LTS kernel, but we will not know > > more until it gets closer to release time. > > Thanks for kindly explanation :) > > Anyway, I will test these patches, land to our commerical products and try the best > efforts on making it more stable for Linux upstream to merge. Sounds great. But why do you need to add compression to get this code out of staging? Why not move it out now and then add compression and other new features to it then? thanks, greg k-h
On 2019/6/18 14:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:18:00PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >> >> >> On 2019/6/18 13:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >>>>>> At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for >>>>>> merging soon... I'm still working on it, testing its stability >>>>>> these days and hope these patches get merged for 5.3 LTS >>>>>> (if 5.3 is a LTS version). >>>>> >>>>> Why would 5.3 be a LTS kernel? >>>>> >>>>> curious as to how you came up with that :) >>>> >>>> My personal thought is about one LTS kernel one year... >>>> Usually 5 versions after the previous kernel...(4.4 -> 4.9 -> 4.14 -> 4.19), >>>> which is not suitable for all historical LTSs...just prepare for 5.3... >>> >>> I try to pick the "last" kernel that is released each year, which >>> sometimes is 5 kernels, sometimes 4, sometimes 6, depending on the >>> release cycle. >>> >>> So odds are it will be 5.4 for the next LTS kernel, but we will not know >>> more until it gets closer to release time. >> >> Thanks for kindly explanation :) >> >> Anyway, I will test these patches, land to our commerical products and try the best >> efforts on making it more stable for Linux upstream to merge. > > Sounds great. > > But why do you need to add compression to get this code out of staging? > Why not move it out now and then add compression and other new features > to it then? Move out of staging could be over several linux versions since I'd like to get majority fs people agreed to this. Decompression inplace is an important part of erofs to show its performance benefits over existed compress filesystems and I tend to merge it in advance. Thanks, Gao Xiang > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:52:21PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > On 2019/6/18 14:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:18:00PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 2019/6/18 13:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > >>>>>> At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for > >>>>>> merging soon... I'm still working on it, testing its stability > >>>>>> these days and hope these patches get merged for 5.3 LTS > >>>>>> (if 5.3 is a LTS version). > >>>>> > >>>>> Why would 5.3 be a LTS kernel? > >>>>> > >>>>> curious as to how you came up with that :) > >>>> > >>>> My personal thought is about one LTS kernel one year... > >>>> Usually 5 versions after the previous kernel...(4.4 -> 4.9 -> 4.14 -> 4.19), > >>>> which is not suitable for all historical LTSs...just prepare for 5.3... > >>> > >>> I try to pick the "last" kernel that is released each year, which > >>> sometimes is 5 kernels, sometimes 4, sometimes 6, depending on the > >>> release cycle. > >>> > >>> So odds are it will be 5.4 for the next LTS kernel, but we will not know > >>> more until it gets closer to release time. > >> > >> Thanks for kindly explanation :) > >> > >> Anyway, I will test these patches, land to our commerical products and try the best > >> efforts on making it more stable for Linux upstream to merge. > > > > Sounds great. > > > > But why do you need to add compression to get this code out of staging? > > Why not move it out now and then add compression and other new features > > to it then? > > Move out of staging could be over several linux versions since I'd like to get > majority fs people agreed to this. You never know until you try :) > Decompression inplace is an important part of erofs to show its performance > benefits over existed compress filesystems and I tend to merge it in advance. There is no requirement to show benefits over other filesystems in order to get it merged, but I understand the feeling. That's fine, we can wait, we are not going anywhere... thanks, greg k-h
On 2019/6/18 15:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:52:21PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >> >> >> On 2019/6/18 14:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:18:00PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2019/6/18 13:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >>>>>>>> At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for >>>>>>>> merging soon... I'm still working on it, testing its stability >>>>>>>> these days and hope these patches get merged for 5.3 LTS >>>>>>>> (if 5.3 is a LTS version). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why would 5.3 be a LTS kernel? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> curious as to how you came up with that :) >>>>>> >>>>>> My personal thought is about one LTS kernel one year... >>>>>> Usually 5 versions after the previous kernel...(4.4 -> 4.9 -> 4.14 -> 4.19), >>>>>> which is not suitable for all historical LTSs...just prepare for 5.3... >>>>> >>>>> I try to pick the "last" kernel that is released each year, which >>>>> sometimes is 5 kernels, sometimes 4, sometimes 6, depending on the >>>>> release cycle. >>>>> >>>>> So odds are it will be 5.4 for the next LTS kernel, but we will not know >>>>> more until it gets closer to release time. >>>> >>>> Thanks for kindly explanation :) >>>> >>>> Anyway, I will test these patches, land to our commerical products and try the best >>>> efforts on making it more stable for Linux upstream to merge. >>> >>> Sounds great. >>> >>> But why do you need to add compression to get this code out of staging? >>> Why not move it out now and then add compression and other new features >>> to it then? >> >> Move out of staging could be over several linux versions since I'd like to get >> majority fs people agreed to this. > > You never know until you try :) Thanks for your encouragement :) Actually, I personally gave a brief talk on this year LSF/MM 2019 but since I cannot speak English well so the entire effect is not good enough :(... I will personally contact with important people ... to get their agreements on this file system soon. > >> Decompression inplace is an important part of erofs to show its performance >> benefits over existed compress filesystems and I tend to merge it in advance. > > There is no requirement to show benefits over other filesystems in order > to get it merged, but I understand the feeling. That's fine, we can > wait, we are not going anywhere... Thanks again. I am just proving that the erofs solution may be one of the best compression solutions in performance first scenerio :) Thanks, Gao Xiang > > thanks, > > greg k-h >