| To: | Sam Vaughan <sjv@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:25:36 -0800 |
| Cc: | Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <950D2C3E-11AE-4805-9286-65ECD880272D@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1163381602.11914.10.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <965ECEF2-971D-46A1-B3F2-C6C1860C9ED8@xxxxxxx> <1163390942.14517.12.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <12275452-56ED-4921-899F-EFF1C05B251A@xxxxxxx> <1163395250.14517.38.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <950D2C3E-11AE-4805-9286-65ECD880272D@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 11:04:17AM +1100, Sam Vaughan wrote: > Those extents are curiously uniform, all 32kB in size. O_SYNC writes? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads, Sam Vaughan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs kernel BUG again in 2.6.17.11, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads, Sam Vaughan |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads, Sam Vaughan |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |