xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] bulkstat fixups

To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bulkstat fixups
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:02:44 +1100
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <473D1DE0.1090106@sgi.com>
References: <4733EEF2.9010504@sgi.com> <20071111214759.GS995458@sgi.com> <4737C11D.8030007@sgi.com> <20071112041121.GT66820511@sgi.com> <473D1DE0.1090106@sgi.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:34:40PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> Updated patch - I added cond_resched() calls into each loop - for loops that
> have a 'continue' somewhere in them I added the cond_resched() at the start,
> otherwise I put it at the end.

You probably don't need the call in the innermost loop (the walking across
the inode cluster).

> >>>Userspace visile change. What applications do we have that rely on this
> >>>behaviour that will be broken by this change?
> >>Any apps that rely on the existing behaviour are probably broken.  If an 
> >>app
> >>wants to call xfs_bulkstat_single() it should use 
> >>XFS_IOC_FSBULKSTAT_SINGLE.
> >
> >Perhaps, but we can't arbitrarily decide that those apps will now break on
> >a new kernel with this change. At minimum we need to audit all of the code
> >we have that uses bulkstat for such breakage (including DMF!) before we 
> >make a
> >change like this.
> 
> I've looked through everything we have in xfs-cmds and nothing relies on
> this bug being present.  Vlad helped me with the DMF side - DMF does not
> use the XFS_IOC_FSBULKSTAT ioctl, it has it's own interface into the kernel
> which calls xfs_bulkstat() directly so it wont be affected by this change.

Sounds like it really is a bug as nothing is trying to exploit that
behaviour. Ok, seems fair to fix it.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group


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