From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
To: liubo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>, josef <josef@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Btrfs: introduce sub transaction stuff
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 07:34:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1306235183-sup-2539@shiny> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DDCD810.7090904@cn.fujitsu.com>
Excerpts from liubo's message of 2011-05-25 06:21:04 -0400:
> On 05/24/2011 11:56 PM, liubo wrote:
> >> > The problems I hit:
> >> >
> >> > When an inode is dropped from cache (just via iput) and then read in
> >> > again, the BTRFS_I(inode)->logged_trans goes back to zero. When this
> >> > happens the logging code assumes the inode isn't in the log and hits
> >> > -EEXIST if it finds inode items.
> >> >
> >
> > ok, I just find where the problem addresses. This is because I've put
> > a check between logged_trans and transaction_id, which is inclined to
> > filter those that are first logged, and I'm sorry for not taking the
> > 'iput' stuff into consideration. And it's easy to fix this, as we
> > can just kick this check off and put another check while searching
> > 'BTRFS_INODE_ITEM_KEY', since if we cannot find a inode item in a tree,
> > it proves that this inode is definitely not in the tree.
> >
> > So I'd like to make some changes like this patch(_UNTEST_):
>
> I've thought of this problem more and came up with a _better and more efficient_ patch.
> It will always get BTRFS_I(inode)->logged_trans correct value.
Thanks, this makes sense.
>
> But I'm still trying to test it somehow... :P
http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/synctest/synctest.c
I used synctest -F -f -u -n 100 -t 32 .
-chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-24 11:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-19 8:11 [PATCH 0/9] Btrfs: improve write ahead log with sub transaction Liu Bo
2011-05-19 8:11 ` [PATCH 1/9] Btrfs: introduce sub transaction stuff Liu Bo
2011-05-20 0:23 ` Chris Mason
2011-05-20 0:53 ` liubo
2011-05-23 14:40 ` Chris Mason
2011-05-25 3:56 ` liubo
2011-05-25 10:21 ` liubo
2011-05-24 11:34 ` Chris Mason [this message]
2011-05-26 2:48 ` liubo
2011-05-19 8:11 ` [PATCH 2/9] Btrfs: update block generation if should_cow_block fails Liu Bo
2011-05-19 8:11 ` [PATCH 3/9] Btrfs: modify btrfs_drop_extents API Liu Bo
2011-05-19 8:11 ` [PATCH 4/9] Btrfs: introduce first sub trans Liu Bo
2011-05-19 8:11 ` [PATCH 5/9] Btrfs: still update inode trans stuff when size remains unchanged Liu Bo
2011-05-19 8:11 ` [PATCH 6/9] Btrfs: improve log with sub transaction Liu Bo
2011-05-19 8:11 ` [PATCH 7/9] Btrfs: add checksum check for log Liu Bo
2011-05-19 8:11 ` [PATCH 8/9] Btrfs: fix a bug of log check Liu Bo
2011-05-19 8:11 ` [PATCH 9/9] Btrfs: kick off useless code Liu Bo
2011-05-19 8:14 ` [PATCH 0/9] Btrfs: improve write ahead log with sub transaction liubo
2011-05-23 16:43 ` Josef Bacik
2011-05-24 1:29 ` liubo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1306235183-sup-2539@shiny \
--to=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=josef@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).