xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: more shutdown-related fixes

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: more shutdown-related fixes
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 05:56:42 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130903190210.GA23072@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1378208858-20557-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130903190210.GA23072@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:02:10PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:47:36PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > 
> > More fixes as a result of forced shutdown testing. The first is
> > fixing yet another hole in the buf log item freein logic when a
> > transaction is aborted, and the other removes the asserts from the
> > inode buffer checking so that verifiers return errors rather than
> > crashing the system.
> 
> Btw, I've been wondering for a while if we need a major change to how
> the buf item refcounting works.  All these little special cases in there
> are utterly non-intuitive.  I've not looked very deep yet, but a normal
> scheme where every reference to it increments the refcount, and we
> simply free it when that hits zero should work here as well.  We'd
> still need flags for the abort and clean conditions, but it would still
> be way simpler than what we have now.

Yes, it makes sense to do, but I haven't considered it yet as I have
other things to worry about right now. We'd still need the AIL
removal on abort, though, as that is still the last place we'll see
it on a shutdown...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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