xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Inode reclaim fixes (was Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: ca

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Inode reclaim fixes (was Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim)
From: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:30:18 +0100
Cc: Tommy van Leeuwen <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4B72D3F3.2040308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4B3F9F88.9030307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100107110446.GA13802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B45CFAC.4000607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100108113114.GA8654@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B504B03.7050604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B6706CE.1020207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100208194226.GD9527@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B712166.9010701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100209103157.GA5197@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B72A9D1.8030101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100210145508.GA29047@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B72D3F3.2040308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
On 10-2-2010 16:42, Patrick Schreurs wrote:
On 10-2-2010 15:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 01:42:57PM +0100, Patrick Schreurs wrote:
Thanks for the patch. After having this patch applied we saw *a lot*
warnings. They all look like this:

Ok, looks like that is not an issue, so you can discard that patch.

I went down to the radix tree code to look for races in it's tag
handling, but then noticed that we might have an issue with our
usage of the radix-tree API. Can you try the patch below ontop
of Dave's rollup, and instead of my previous one?

Okay. This patch is currently active. Thanks. I don't have a way to
trigger it, so we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Servers running with this patch applied are still running stable. The first server we've patched is running stable for 2 weeks now. Should we try to have this patches included for 2.6.33?

-Patrick

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