Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\]\s+Delayed\s+logging\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\]\s+Delayed\s+logging\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:30:00 +1100; Hi Folks, You've all heard me talking about delayed logging, but there hasn't been any code yet. Well, here's the first code drop - see the git tree reference at the end of the email to get it. If yo; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00170.html (14,924 bytes)
2. Re: [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:01:54 -0400; Running the series on my KVM testbox trips out this assert in xfstests 013, which suggests we might be calling iput one too much somewhere (e.g. IOP_UNLOCK)): [ 132.174780] Assertion failed: atomic_r; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00187.html (9,282 bytes)
3. Re: [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:08:01 -0400; Some comments on the patches: - "xfs: cluster fsync transaction" seems like something that can stand on it's own and go into the tree now. Despite the comments it currently only clusters in fsync and; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00188.html (8,138 bytes)
4. Re: [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:24 -0400; Turns out this was due to the fsync clustering patch, which adds inodes to a transaction without first grabbing a reference to them. Unofrtunately grabbing the reference is not a easy as it sounds, a; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00189.html (8,171 bytes)
5. Re: [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:38:18 -0400; Next xfstests failure in 014 (note that this is all without even enabling the delaylog mount option): [ 392.576013] Assertion failed: xfs_alloc_busy_search(mp, busyp->agno, 2653 [ 392.586038] --[ cut; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00190.html (9,723 bytes)
6. Re: [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:08:41 -0400; I just saw a corrupted inode buffer during log recovery in 087, even without the delaylog mount option. It's however not easily reproducible.; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00191.html (7,794 bytes)
7. Re: [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:06:36 +1100; Yeah, that change was only half-baked - I was in two minds as to whether to include it. I'll drop it from the series until I've had more time to consider it. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxx; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00192.html (9,284 bytes)
8. Re: [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:14:03 +1100; As I said, I'll have a bit more of a think about this one... Agreed. They were ordered this way because I only added the extent tracking after doing the delayed logging and tracking down one of the s; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00193.html (9,827 bytes)
9. Re: [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:15:45 +1100; Ok, that implies a corrupted rbtree. I didn't actually run xfsqa on thse patches without the "-o delaylog" option, so I'll see if I can reproduce it here. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00194.html (8,534 bytes)
10. Re: [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:20:51 +1100; Yeah, that's the sort of thing I'm seeing 087, 110 (IIRC) and 121 are the tests that I've been seeing occasional, random failures like this. I hadn't noticed it without the delaylog option, so I'll s; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00195.html (9,059 bytes)
11. Re: [RFC] Delayed logging (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:26:40 +1100; Ok, I got reliable reproduction of this problem with delayed logging on a single CPU VM, and I've been able to understand the problem that delayed logging it triggering.. It appears to be related to; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00276.html (12,165 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 11
Page: [1]