xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Use atomic_t and wait_event to track dquot pincount
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:11:59 +1000
Cc: Peter Leckie <pleckie@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-dev@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48DC5945.9060506@xxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, Peter Leckie <pleckie@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-dev@xxxxxxx
References: <48D9EB8F.1070104@xxxxxxx> <48D9EF6E.8010505@xxxxxxx> <20080924074604.GK5448@disturbed> <48D9F718.4010905@xxxxxxx> <20080925010318.GB27997@disturbed> <48DB4F3F.8040307@xxxxxxx> <20080926003401.GG27997@disturbed> <48DC3BBB.4080807@xxxxxxx> <20080926025718.GJ27997@disturbed> <48DC5945.9060506@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 01:38:45PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>> Right, but keep in mind that the patch doesn't prevent spurious
>> wakeups - it merely causes the thread to wakeup and go back to sleep
> Yes that's right and it's why I suggested replacing the uses of 
> wake_up_process
> with wake_up and a wait queue where both the xfsaild and xfssyncd threads can
> have a wait queue specific to them.  This way we only wake them up if they are
> sleeping on that wait queue and not somewhere else waiting for a different 
> event.
> I'm pretty sure that will be a safe change to make.

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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