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 q22BEJfB041741 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 05:14:19 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id DQKqIdNhNRHCBB0b (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 03:14:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:14:16 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] xfs: add a shrinker for quotacheck Message-ID: <20120302111416.GA18979@infradead.org> References: <1330661507-1121-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1330661507-1121-9-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20120302075104.GG4117@infradead.org> <20120302100426.GI5091@dastard> <20120302103831.GA16825@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120302103831.GA16825@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: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 05:38:31AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Right, the whole issue also applies to any bulkstat. But even for that > it doesn't seem that bad. > > We add a new XFS_IGET_BULKSTAT flag for iget, which then sets an > XFS_INOTCACHE or similar flag on the inode. If we see that in bulkstat > on a clean inode in ->drop_inode return true there, which takes care > of the VFS side. > > For the XFS side we'd have to move the call to xfs_syncd_init earlier > during the mount process, which effectively revers > 2bcf6e970f5a88fa05dced5eeb0326e13d93c4a1. That should be fine now that > we never call into the quota code from the sync work items. If we want > to be entirely on the safe side we could only move starting the reclaim > work item earlier. It seems like we actually only need the second for to fix the quotacheck issue (or to be equivalent to your patch), even if the first one would be nice to have eventually. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs