From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2683D7F98 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 01:41:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1007E8F808E for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 23:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Wqkg7MgQ0bHjfHho for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 23:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:41:21 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 50/50] xfs: use reference counts to free clean buffer items Message-ID: <20130814064121.GD12779@dastard> References: <1376304611-22994-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1376304611-22994-51-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <520A4AB7.1080207@sgi.com> <20130813214648.GC6023@dastard> <520AAC79.1030608@sgi.com> <20130814035738.GD6023@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Zhi Yong Wu Cc: Mark Tinguely , xfstests On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:12:36PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:00:25PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > >> On 08/13/13 16:46, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> >On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:03:19AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > >> >>On 08/12/13 05:50, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> >>>From: Dave Chinner > >> >>> > >> >>>When a transaction is cancelled and the buffer log item is clean in > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> > >> >>why is a clean buffer on the AIL? Racing with a completion handler? > >> > > >> >"clean" means that it wasn't dirtied in the transaction - it can be > >> >in the AIL and holding a reference count that way. > >> > >> I am wondering because it should not have made it into the CIL if it > >> was not dirtied in a transaction - at least according to the the log > >> item descriptor flag at least. > > > > CIL != AIL. IOWs, the bli_refcount going to zero doesn't always > By the way, can you explain what the difference is between CIL and AIL? Documentation/filesystems/xfs-delayed-logging-design.txt Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs