From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:43040 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755243AbdBGWV5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:21:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 23:21:55 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] xfs: improve handling of busy extents in the low-level allocator Message-ID: <20170207222155.GA29750@lst.de> References: <20170207171501.4268-1-hch@lst.de> <20170207171501.4268-4-hch@lst.de> <20170207215149.GG12378@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170207215149.GG12378@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 01:51:49PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > So instead we add a new waitqueue and a generation counter to the pag > > structure so that we can do wakeups once we've removed busy extents, > > and we replace the single retry with an unconditional one - after > > all we hold the AGF buffer lock, so no other allocations or frees > > can be racing with us in this AG. > > Um... is this patch supposed to be merged with the previous one? > They have the same subject/commit message. It is - but git rebase keeps duplicating patches when you try to fold a patch into the previous one and there is any kind of conflict. In that case it needs another pass to really fold it which I missed for this series.