Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+1\/4\]\s+xfs\:\s+fix\s+locking\s+in\s+xfs_iget_cache_hit\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:15:55 -0400
The locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit currently has numerous problems: - we clear the reclaim tag without i_flags_lock which protects modifications to it - we call inode_init_always which can sleep with
/archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00024.html (17,696 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:50:23 -0500
Any chance this could be broken into 2 patches starting with the set/clear cleanup something like: diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c index b619d6b..49c7b6f 100644
/archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00053.html (12,036 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:29:51 -0400
Let's just drop those for now given that we're late enough in the cycle. New version below: -- The locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit currently has numerous problems: - we clear the reclaim tag without i_
/archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00054.html (17,932 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit (score: 1)
Author: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:25:47 -0500
The locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit currently has numerous problems: - we clear the reclaim tag without i_flags_lock which protects modifications to it - we call inode_init_always which can sleep with
/archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00063.html (22,129 bytes)

5. Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:09:40 -0400
The wait_on_inode is only sensible for the non-recycle case. But it's not actually very useful with our flags scheme, so for now I've reverted to do the old-style polling and just added an XXX commen
/archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00089.html (20,047 bytes)

6. Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:01:36 -0500
This seems ok to me but I have to be honest, I'm having a hard time getting my head around back into the inode lifecycle. one comment, I wonder if it's worth capturing the actual error from inode_ini
/archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00165.html (21,029 bytes)

7. Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit (score: 1)
Author: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:54:35 -0500
Another case when we find XFS_INEW set is the race with the cache miss, which just set up a new inode. Would the proposed code be still sensible in that case? If yes, at least comments should be upda
/archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00166.html (24,096 bytes)

8. Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:36:34 -0400
Yeah. The new version should fix it. Here's a version with the small update that Eric suggested, any chance we could get this into 2.6.31 still? -- The locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit currently has num
/archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00167.html (20,324 bytes)

9. Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix locking in xfs_iget_cache_hit (score: 1)
Author: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:05:46 -0500
The case, I was referring to, was indeed the reclaimable one when the first thread is going through xfs_iget xfs_iget_cache_hit if (ip->i_flags & XFS_IRECLAIMABLE) { ip->i_flags |= XFS_INEW; xfs_setu
/archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00168.html (21,095 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu