xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS regression?

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20071010152742.1b2a7bce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071011010139.GT995458@xxxxxxx> <20071011151512.69f19419@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071011215352.GX995458@xxxxxxx> <20071012002613.GL23367404@xxxxxxx> <20071012123601.291fee8a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <cc7060690710130635u2a85bc28we36b344c0987b691@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071014230949.GO23367404@xxxxxxx> <cc7060690710150258v327637c3i3c0df4a821d2d056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>