From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Whitehouse Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:45:29 +0100 Subject: [Cluster-devel] [GFS2 PATCH][TRY #2] GFS2: eliminate redundant log flush In-Reply-To: <1539148654.15995880.1347633750583.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> References: <1539148654.15995880.1347633750583.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1347633929.2729.6.camel@menhir> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 10:42 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > | ----- Original Message ----- > | | What ensures that the revokes are on disk? > | (snip) > | | This one looks like it is probably correct, however there is no > | | point > | | in > | | adding a comment to refer to code that has just been removed. Just > | | remove that call and put the explanation in the patch description, > | | or > | | maybe include just a short comment so say that there is a log flush > | | implicit in the write_inode_now() call, > | | > | | Steve. > | > | You're right about the revokes; my bad. Here is a respin, with just > | a comment in the patch rather than in the code: > | > | Hi, > | > | In function gfs2_evict_inode, there was a call to gfs2_log_flush > | that is unnecessary because it immediately calls write_inode_now > | which makes another call to gfs2_log_flush. This patch eliminates > | the redundant log flush. > | > | Regards, > | > | Bob Peterson > | Red Hat GFS > | > | Signed-off-by: Bob Peterson > | --- > | diff --git a/fs/gfs2/super.c b/fs/gfs2/super.c > | index 3cbac68..ba4fde5 100644 > | --- a/fs/gfs2/super.c > | +++ b/fs/gfs2/super.c > | @@ -1542,7 +1542,6 @@ static void gfs2_evict_inode(struct inode > | *inode) > | goto out_unlock; > | > | out_truncate: > | - gfs2_log_flush(sdp, ip->i_gl); > | write_inode_now(inode, 1); > | gfs2_ail_flush(ip->i_gl, 0); > | > | > > Hi, > > I've still not heard back on this revised patch from 09 Aug, and it > has not gone into -nmw. Perhaps it was missed? > > Regards, > > Bob Peterson > Red Hat File Systems Yes, I think that might have fallen off the stack. Apologies for the delay. However I think we should check with Ben as this is the same bit of code that he is looking at currently, Steve.