From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p97MIAeK002314 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:18:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: do not update xa_last_pushed_lsn for locked items From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20111006183549.399127499@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20111006183257.036884724@bombadil.infradead.org> <20111006183549.399127499@bombadil.infradead.org> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:18:05 -0500 Message-ID: <1318025885.2810.77.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: Stefan Priebe , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 14:32 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > If an item was locked we should not update xa_last_pushed_lsn and thus skip > it when restarting the AIL scan as we need to be able to lock and write it > out as soon as possible. Otherwise heavy lock contention might starve AIL > pushing too easily, especially given the larger backoff once we moved > xa_last_pushed_lsn all the way to the target lsn. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > Reported-by: Stefan Priebe > Tested-by: Stefan Priebe I remember wondering about that one line during review, but I believe I reasoned something about the "already being reflushed or relogged" made it the right thing to do. Your explanation makes sense though (but what do I know, the original code seemed OK too...). Reviewed-by: Alex Elder _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs