| To: | Bhagi rathi <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS regression? |
| From: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:57:45 +1000 |
| Cc: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Andrew Clayton <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <cc7060690710150258v327637c3i3c0df4a821d2d056@mail.gmail.com> |
| References: | <20071010152742.1b2a7bce@zeus.pccl.info> <20071011010139.GT995458@sgi.com> <20071011151512.69f19419@zeus.pccl.info> <20071011215352.GX995458@sgi.com> <20071012002613.GL23367404@sgi.com> <20071012123601.291fee8a@zeus.pccl.info> <cc7060690710130635u2a85bc28we36b344c0987b691@mail.gmail.com> <20071014230949.GO23367404@sgi.com> <cc7060690710150258v327637c3i3c0df4a821d2d056@mail.gmail.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:28:34PM +0530, Bhagi rathi wrote: > Thanks Dave for the response. Thinking futher, why is that xfs_iunpin has > to mark the inode dirty? Because the inode has been modified, and instead of sprinkling mark_inode_dirty_sync() all over the code, we can do it in a single spot that catches all inode modifications. We don't have to think about it by doing this - inodes in transactions get marked dirty for free.... > All transactions generally modify one time or other, xfs_ichgtime takes care > of marking inode as > dirty. Sure, but there's plenty of other transactions that don't have such a convenient hook. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS regression?, Bhagi rathi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS regression?, Andrew Clayton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS regression?, Bhagi rathi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS regression?, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |