xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 5/5] xfs: fix xfs_quiesce_data

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] xfs: fix xfs_quiesce_data
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 06:41:57 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20090604094512.GU16929@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20090426140305.113371000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090426140708.279368000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A071F06.8040106@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090511201511.GB14195@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090604094512.GU16929@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 07:45:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 04:15:11PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 01:37:58PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > I guess I too would like a reason for the filestream_flush move
> > > somewhere in the changelog...
> > 
> > Hehe, maybe Dave can chime in.  Or I can test if it actually affects
> > anything and maybe move it out to another patch.  The lack of
> > reliability of the filesystreams tests doesn't make this any easier to
> > test.
> 
> (Just catching up on my mail backlog)
> 
> I think that the filestream_flush() call should actually be after
> the data flush. filestream_flush() is used to clear the filestream
> association cache which holds references to the inodes.
> 
> Where the flush is currently placed is destroying the association
> that defines the AG the data should be written to before the data is
> written. As a result it may not end up in the AG carefully
> associated with the inode during the write() syscall.
> 
> This may be one of the reasons for the filestreams tests failing
> frequently....

Makes sense.  I stil get reliable failures on 171 and 172, but the
others seem to pass with these changes.

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