xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2] Use atomic_t and wait_event to track dquot pincount

To: Peter Leckie <pleckie@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Use atomic_t and wait_event to track dquot pincount
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:31:47 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-dev@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48DC3D13.1010805@xxxxxxx>
References: <48D9C1DD.6030607@xxxxxxx> <48D9EB8F.1070104@xxxxxxx> <48D9EF6E.8010505@xxxxxxx> <20080924074604.GK5448@disturbed> <48D9F718.4010905@xxxxxxx> <20080925010318.GB27997@disturbed> <48DB4F3F.8040307@xxxxxxx> <20080926003401.GG27997@disturbed> <48DC3BBB.4080807@xxxxxxx> <48DC3D13.1010805@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:38:27AM +1000, Peter Leckie wrote:
> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>> The underlying problem has nothing to do with xfs_qm_dqflush() - the
>> spurious wakeups are caused by calls to wake_up_process() that  
>> arbitrarily
>> wake up a process that is in a state where it shouldn't be woken up.  If
>> we don't fix the spurious wakeups then we could easily re-introduce this
>> problem again.  If xfs_qm_dqflush() should be non-blocking then that's a
>> separate change and it sounds like a good change too.
> Ok so what do we want to do. It almost sounds like there are 3 issues I  
> need to solve,
> first clean up the code, second make xfs_qm_dqflush() non blocking, and 3ed
> fix up the spurious wakeups.
>
> Should I propose 3 patches to fix each of these issues?

Well, your patch for 1 is in, Dave has one for 2, and I don't think
three is an issue - at least for xfssyncd.

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