xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

XFS mkfs/mount options

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: XFS mkfs/mount options
From: Mark <musicman529@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=11bCm9abXFrwNb1K1xInDc2Ap6fhFIHyesRHe0Xsl7liayuykRpp7vtaPjWjbAc6bwjDMKUMl/wFyDZCsXCYUAQD+Qd6sBwQBbLm4moJYEbbvEOHF5RRh3G8mpyY08sqTeOOXbxaLlUWqM9fZ8rbwtYHY97E+9nF98+Wzt1iMwY=;
Reply-to: MusicMan529@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
I have been doing some experiments with XFS on my "hot new desktop system," and 
I have turned up an interesting bit of info. (Note: My system is an AMD64 X2 
2.5GHz running Linux.)

When I mount an XFS volume (thus loading the xfs kernel module), the kernel 
spawns two CPU-bound threads for "xfslogd" and "xfsdatad". However, it appears 
that only one of each of these kernel processes is getting any load, as 
indicated by "ps ax":

 3700 ?        S<     0:00 [xfslogd/0]
 3701 ?        S<     0:19 [xfslogd/1]
 3702 ?        S<     0:00 [xfsdatad/0]
 3703 ?        D<     0:05 [xfsdatad/1]

For each of these kernel threads, only those on CPU #2 are actually pulling 
notable load. Why is this?

I understand that I may have overlooked some critical tidbit of info in the man 
pages, or perhaps I have not yet found something online that could explain a 
default limitation. If so, I would very much enjoy new information about using 
XFS on a desktop system.

TYIA for your answer(s).

-- 
Mark

"What better place to find oneself than
 on the streets of one's home village?"
      --Capt. Jean-Luc Picard, "Family"


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>