From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o02CBJVE104855 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 2010 06:11:19 -0600 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 02C2715033D4 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 2010 04:12:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail13.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.98]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id jOkaNyTZUwj6FlgD for ; Sat, 02 Jan 2010 04:12:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 23:12:03 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] XFS: Kill filestreams cache flush Message-ID: <20100102121203.GG13802@discord.disaster> References: <1262399900-19110-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100102115338.GA18502@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100102115338.GA18502@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 Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 06:53:38AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 01:38:20PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > The filestreams cache flush is not needed in the sync code as it > > does not affect data writeback, and it is now not used by the > > growfs code, either, so kill it. > > I have to admit I never understood the purpose of this call. I can't remember why it was put there, either. I may have even put it there when I was getting filestreams ready for merge but I can't remember at all... > What xfs_fstrm_free_func does is: > > - clear the filesystems flag on the inode > - decrement pagf_fstrms > - drop references on the inode (and parent if known) > - free the filestream item > > Nothing of that should matter for sync, although dropping inode > references during sync might generally be a good idea. Which means that sync destroys active filestreams associations and that seems more broken to me than anything an active reference will cause. I think just letting them time out is better than having them destroyed by external operations. I'm happy to leave it there if you want.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs