| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 0/5] do not take the iolock in inode reclaim context |
| From: | Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:30:48 -0500 |
| Cc: | <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20120704151328.928543446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20120704151328.928543446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 |
On 07/04/2012 10:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: I really liked the way this patch series was broken up. As I am new to the XFS group, this was very educational to review. Nice job Christoph.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 --Rich |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH v5 2/4]xfs: Introduce a new function to find the desired type of offset from page cache, Jeff Liu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: clean up xfs_inactive, Rich Johnston |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 0/5] do not take the iolock in inode reclaim context, Mark Tinguely |
| Next by Thread: | bug? "directory flags set on non-directory inode 2877105", Arkadiusz MiÅkiewicz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |