xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 8/8] xfs: add a shrinker for quotacheck

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] xfs: add a shrinker for quotacheck
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:14:16 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120302103831.GA16825@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1330661507-1121-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1330661507-1121-9-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120302075104.GG4117@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120302100426.GI5091@dastard> <20120302103831.GA16825@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 05:38:31AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Right, the whole issue also applies to any bulkstat.  But even for that
> it doesn't seem that bad.
> 
> We add a new XFS_IGET_BULKSTAT flag for iget, which then sets an
> XFS_INOTCACHE or similar flag on the inode.  If we see that in bulkstat
> on a clean inode in ->drop_inode return true there, which takes care
> of the VFS side.
> 
> For the XFS side we'd have to move the call to xfs_syncd_init earlier 
> during the mount process, which effectively revers
> 2bcf6e970f5a88fa05dced5eeb0326e13d93c4a1.  That should be fine now that
> we never call into the quota code from the sync work items.  If we want
> to be entirely on the safe side we could only move starting the reclaim
> work item earlier.

It seems like we actually only need the second for to fix the quotacheck
issue (or to be equivalent to your patch), even if the first one would
be nice to have eventually.

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