On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Keith Keller kkeller@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote:
On 2013-03-07, Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
You may want to check this out:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6087
My understanding is that "There is no side effect other than the load. There are not performance issues with the ailds behaving like this." Is this not the case ?
As far as I can tell, it is. I actually prompted Dave's quoted comment on the XFS list:
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-11/msg00594.html
So this would be a low priority task for me (as well as a learning exercise). If the patch were two lines I probably wouldn't bother. ;-) It is 99.5% cosmetic, but I have noticed that the ''baseline'' load, when there is no I/O, varies between 3 and 4, which makes it very slightly more difficult to interpret the load. That is my main motivation for bothering--if the baseline were more stable I probably wouldn't bother. (With fewer XFS filesystems mounted the issue is even less obvious.)
I thought about applying the patch to the centosplus kernel but decided not to bother because it looked like a "non-issue". But it you think it's worth the fix, that can be done. It will be even better if you supply the actual patch for the CentOS kernel.
Akemi