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 oB77beIw110659 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 01:37:42 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id DCFD31CCE47 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:39:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 6bCEHQveucwoZ16s for ; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 23:39:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 02:39:25 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] xfs: remove all the inodes on a buffer from the AIL in bulk Message-ID: <20101207073925.GA25617@infradead.org> References: <1290993152-20999-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1290993152-20999-7-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20101206143308.GA31100@infradead.org> <20101207034456.GB29856@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101207034456.GB29856@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 On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:44:56PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:33:08AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > While the patch looks good for the ail lock contetion removal, I don't > > quite like the model with the double iteration over the log item list > > on the buffer. What do you think about the following plan: > > > > (1) merge xfs_istale_done into xfs_iflush_done by checking for > > XFS_ISTALE > > (2) convert not only the inode log item completion to your new scheme, > > but also the dquots > > (3) replace xfs_buf_do_callbacks with a callback in the buffer, which > > now points to the inode and dqout routines, or calls the completion > > for the only items in "normal" buf items. > > Seems like a reasonable approach. However, what I'd prefer to do is > make these changes as a separate set of changes on top of this patch > series rather than try to integrate them into the existing series. > If there are problems, that should make it more bisectable. Do you > have any concerns with such an approach? Sounds fine, although I think getting rid of xfs_istale_done might be worth doing before this patch. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs