From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n2G9ehSq082213 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:41:03 -0500 Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 9532319BDCA for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id IL8m4gSCV3I3HwhF for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:40:19 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] [XFS] introduce a AG inode tree walker Message-ID: <20090316094019.GD26138@disturbed> References: <1237117603-26071-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20090316075338.GA19858@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090316075338.GA19858@infradead.org> 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 Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 03:53:38AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:46:37PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > This series splits up the sync and reclaim code into three > > separate actions. The first is the tree walker, the second is > > the inode validation and the third is the operation to execute > > on the inode. > > > > This allows us to somewhat abstract the radix tree away from the > > act of walking the cached inodes and puts in place mechanisms that > > can be extended for bulk inode cache lookups. > > > > This also splits the inode writeback into separate data and metadata > > sync operations and optimises them a little...... > > Just did a quick XFSQA run with your whole patch series applied and > I get this oops in 001: I haven't seen that - it runs through a UML test run just fine. I'll see if I can reproduce it... If you drop the last patch (the iterator patch) does it work ok? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs