David Chinner wrote:
> ping?
>
> This is needed for 2.6.25-rcX....
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:59:06AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
>> Idle state is not being detected properly by the xfsaild push
>> code. The current idle state is detected by an empty list
>> which may never happen with mostly idle filesystem or one
>> using lazy superblock counters. A single dirty item in the
>> list will result repeated looping to push everything past
>> the target when everything because it fails to check if we
>> managed to push anything.
>>
>> Fix by considering a dirty list with everything past the target
>> as an idle state and set the timeout appropriately.
Seems good to me.
Acked-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
-Eric
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c | 15 +++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- 2.6.x-xfs-new.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c 2008-02-18
>> 09:14:34.000000000 +1100
>> +++ 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c 2008-02-18 09:18:52.070682570
>> +1100
>> @@ -261,14 +261,17 @@ xfsaild_push(
>> xfs_log_force(mp, (xfs_lsn_t)0, XFS_LOG_FORCE);
>> }
>>
>> - /*
>> - * We reached the target so wait a bit longer for I/O to complete and
>> - * remove pushed items from the AIL before we start the next scan from
>> - * the start of the AIL.
>> - */
>> - if ((XFS_LSN_CMP(lsn, target) >= 0)) {
>> + if (count && (XFS_LSN_CMP(lsn, target) >= 0)) {
>> + /*
>> + * We reached the target so wait a bit longer for I/O to
>> + * complete and remove pushed items from the AIL before we
>> + * start the next scan from the start of the AIL.
>> + */
>> tout += 20;
>> last_pushed_lsn = 0;
>> + } else if (!count) {
>> + /* We're past our target or empty, so idle */
>> + tout = 1000;
>> } else if ((restarts > XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS) ||
>> (count && ((stuck * 100) / count > 90))) {
>> /*
>
|