| To: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch] Prevent AIL lock contention during transaction completion |
| From: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:45:59 +1100 |
| Cc: | Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>, xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20080125074235.GI155407@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20080121052330.GG155259@xxxxxxx> <4796E8C8.3030702@xxxxxxx> <20080123073446.GU155259@xxxxxxx> <479986F5.7070800@xxxxxxx> <20080125074235.GI155407@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:42:35PM +1100, David Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 05:51:33PM +1100, Timothy Shimmin wrote: > > So do we really need to call xlog_assign_tail_lsn() then? > > Or are we just being conservative in case we missed something? > > Conservative - the last thing I want is to introduce a subtle > difference to the tail lsn in the log record because we didn't > update it immediately before writing it to disk. I think we are > probably safe removing it, but lets leave that until we got some > wider test coverage on this change first.... Tim - did you finish the review of this? Testing on the 2048p machine appears to have been successful, so I'm just waiting on review ACKs now.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] kill xfs_rwlock/xfs_rwunlock, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch] Use atomics for iclog reference counting, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] kill xfs_rwlock/xfs_rwunlock, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch] Prevent AIL lock contention during transaction completion, Timothy Shimmin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |