Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+xfs\:\s+Improve\s+scalability\s+of\s+busy\s+extent\s+tracking\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] xfs: Improve scalability of busy extent tracking (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:47:15 +1000
When we free a metadata extent, we record it in the per-AG busy extent array so that it is not re-used before the freeing transaction hits the disk. This array is fixed size, so when it overflows we
/archives/xfs/2010-04/msg00250.html (50,197 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH] xfs: Improve scalability of busy extent tracking (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:01:43 -0400
Having the patches merged into one certainly helps with readability. This version also passes xfsqa fine while I had some problems with that with the delayed logging tree. I'm a bit confused by that.
/archives/xfs/2010-04/msg00259.html (11,241 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH] xfs: Improve scalability of busy extent tracking (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:07:58 -0400
Oh, and while I'm at it: I'd move the list_del_init(&busyp->list); from xfs_trans_free_busy into xfs_alloc_clear_busy, we also do the list insertation inside xfs_alloc_busy_insert, so that makes it s
/archives/xfs/2010-04/msg00260.html (7,456 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH] xfs: Improve scalability of busy extent tracking (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:16:26 +1000
Yeah, I can't explain the root cause, either. Short story: at the time I did this I was getting desperate - I'd been trying to work out the failure you reported for three days and had tried just abou
/archives/xfs/2010-04/msg00265.html (15,436 bytes)

5. Re: [PATCH] xfs: Improve scalability of busy extent tracking (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:08:49 -0400
Been looking at this a bit and I have a theory: - a tid is not actually unique to a xfs_trans structure, if we call xfs_trans_dup a single xlog_ticket, and with that the tid is re-used by multiple tr
/archives/xfs/2010-04/msg00275.html (8,883 bytes)

6. Re: [PATCH] xfs: Improve scalability of busy extent tracking (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:10:35 -0400
Or just merge the loop calling xfs_alloc_clear_busy directly in xfs_trans_free, ala: Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c == -- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c 2010-04-22 18:59:11.031004018 +0200 +++ xfs/fs/xfs
/archives/xfs/2010-04/msg00276.html (11,829 bytes)

7. Re: [PATCH] xfs: Improve scalability of busy extent tracking (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:24:15 +1000
Good point, and an angle I had missed. The problem case is not re-allocation of the busy extent, it's the subsequent freeing of that extent that is already busy. i.e. we've done "free - alloc - free"
/archives/xfs/2010-04/msg00304.html (11,403 bytes)

8. Re: [PATCH] xfs: Improve scalability of busy extent tracking (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:25:33 +1000
Yeah, that looks like a sane thing to do. I'll update it this way. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2010-04/msg00305.html (8,947 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu