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 o3MH6nEh218047 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:06:49 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 24EA24DA024 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id wZZ6Tl5TsOdKxIOB for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:08:49 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Improve scalability of busy extent tracking Message-ID: <20100422170848.GA26101@infradead.org> References: <1271828835-2094-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100422110143.GA21867@infradead.org> <20100422161626.GE23541@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100422161626.GE23541@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com Been looking at this a bit and I have a theory: - a tid is not actually unique to a xfs_trans structure, if we call xfs_trans_dup a single xlog_ticket, and with that the tid is re-used by multiple transaction structure. - because of that the major semantic change in the version vs the previous one is that we now do not force the synchronous transaction for the case where we re-used a block in the rolled over transaction. Still not quite sure about the implications of this. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs