[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 6/8] xfs: remove all the inodes on a buffer from the AIL in b

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] xfs: remove all the inodes on a buffer from the AIL in bulk
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 02:39:25 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20101207034456.GB29856@dastard>
References: <1290993152-20999-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1290993152-20999-7-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101206143308.GA31100@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101207034456.GB29856@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:44:56PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:33:08AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > While the patch looks good for the ail lock contetion removal, I don't
> > quite like the model with the double iteration over the log item list
> > on the buffer.  What do you think about the following plan:
> > 
> >  (1) merge xfs_istale_done into xfs_iflush_done by checking for
> >      XFS_ISTALE
> >  (2) convert not only the inode log item completion to your new scheme,
> >      but also the dquots
> >  (3) replace xfs_buf_do_callbacks with a callback in the buffer, which
> >      now points to the inode and dqout routines, or calls the completion
> >      for the only items in "normal" buf items.
> Seems like a reasonable approach. However, what I'd prefer to do is
> make these changes as a separate set of changes on top of this patch
> series rather than try to integrate them into the existing series.
> If there are problems, that should make it more bisectable. Do you
> have any concerns with such an approach?

Sounds fine, although I think getting rid of xfs_istale_done might be
worth doing before this patch.

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