xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/5] do not take the iolock in inode reclaim context

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] do not take the iolock in inode reclaim context
From: Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120717071923.GD15473@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20120704151328.928543446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120717071923.GD15473@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> ping/  I'd really like to get this queued up for 3.6

I forget if I mentioned this before, but I pulled this series into our 
testing branch and have had no problems (aside from the last patch not 
applying to my tree) in qa (ceph on xfs) over the last couple of weeks.

sage


> 
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This series should fix the (false-positive) lockdep warnings Sage
> > has seen while testing ceph workloads with heavy attr usage.
> > 
> > Btw, you probably should create the XFS filesystems for Ceph usage
> > with large inodes to avoid going out of line for the attributes.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > xfs mailing list
> > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> ---end quoted text---
> 
> 

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