From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p2MMS4iB052856 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:28:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] xfs: do not immediately reuse busy extent ranges From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20110322200137.474878707@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20110322195550.260682574@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110322200137.474878707@bombadil.infradead.org> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:30:59 -0500 Message-ID: <1300833059.2875.276.camel@doink> Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 15:55 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > plain text document attachment (xfs-skip-busy-extents) > Every time we reallocate a busy extent, we cause a synchronous log force > to occur to ensure the freeing transaction is on disk before we continue > and use the newly allocated extent. This is extremely sub-optimal as we > have to mark every transaction with blocks that get reused as synchronous. > > Instead of searching the busy extent list after deciding on the extent to > allocate, check each candidate extent during the allocation decisions as > to whether they are in the busy list. If they are in the busy list, we > trim the busy range out of the extent we have found and determine if that > trimmed range is still OK for allocation. In many cases, this check can > be incorporated into the allocation extent alignment code which already > does trimming of the found extent before determining if it is a valid > candidate for allocation. > > Based on two earlier patches from Dave Chinner. Again, this looks nearly identical to your last version. On that one, I suggested rewording a comment, and you said "ok." You did not do so in this version, which I guess is fine. I just want to know whether you intended to. If so I'll give you a chance to post an update; if not I can take this one as-is. (I think I'll have the rest of the series reviewed tomorrow.) Reviewed-by: Alex Elder > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig . . . _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs