|To:||Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Inode reclaim fixes (was Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim)|
|From:||Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:42:43 +0100|
|Cc:||Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tommy van Leeuwen <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx|
|References:||<4B3F9F88.9030307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100107110446.GA13802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B45CFAC.4000607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100108113114.GA8654@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B504B03.7050604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B6706CE.1020207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100208194226.GD9527@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B712166.9010701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100209103157.GA5197@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B72A9D1.8030101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100210145508.GA29047@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:18.104.22.168) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1|
On 10-2-2010 15:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 01:42:57PM +0100, Patrick Schreurs wrote:Thanks for the patch. After having this patch applied we saw *a lot* warnings. They all look like this:Ok, looks like that is not an issue, so you can discard that patch. I went down to the radix tree code to look for races in it's tag handling, but then noticed that we might have an issue with our usage of the radix-tree API. Can you try the patch below ontop of Dave's rollup, and instead of my previous one?
Okay. This patch is currently active. Thanks. I don't have a way to trigger it, so we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Obviously we'll keep you posted.Have any of these patches been sent to the stable team? And have these patches been submitted to the upcoming 2.6.33 kernel?
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:|
|Next by Date:|
|Previous by Thread:|
|Next by Thread:|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|