xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] Delayed logging

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Delayed logging
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:06:36 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100315163324.GA26379@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20100315043000.GK4732@dastard> <20100315160154.GA10406@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100315163324.GA26379@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:33:24PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:01:54PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Running the series on my KVM testbox trips out this assert in
> > xfstests 013, which suggests we might be calling iput one too
> > much somewhere (e.g. IOP_UNLOCK)):
> > 
> > [  132.174780] Assertion failed: atomic_read(&VFS_I(dp)->i_count) > 0, 
> > file: fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c, line: 1430
> 
> Turns out this was due to the fsync clustering patch, which adds inodes
> to a transaction without first grabbing a reference to them.
> Unofrtunately grabbing the reference is not a easy as it sounds, as
> inodes in the cluster might be on the unused list or even not have
> valid VFS state anymore, so we can't simply call IHOLD here.  I've
> reverted the patch in my local tree for now.

Yeah, that change was only half-baked - I was in two minds as to
whether to include it. I'll drop it from the series until I've had
more time to consider it.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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