From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:21:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id lAQ0Kuro017169 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:20:59 -0800 Message-ID: <474A112D.2040006@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:19:57 +1100 From: Lachlan McIlroy Reply-To: lachlan@sgi.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Delayed logging of file sizes References: <47467B87.2000000@sgi.com> <20071125225928.GE114266761@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20071125225928.GE114266761@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs-dev , xfs-oss David Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 06:04:39PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: >> The easy solution is to log everything so that log replay doesn't need >> to check if the on-disk version is newer - it can just replay the log. >> But logging everything would cause too much log traffic so this patch >> is a compromise and it logs a transaction before we flush an inode to >> disk only if it has changes that have not yet been logged. > > The problem with this is that the inode will be marked dirty during the > transaction, so we'll never be able to clean an inode if we issue a > transaction during inode writeback. > Ah, yeah, good point. I wrote this patch back before that "dirty inode on transaction" patch went in. For this transaction though the changes to the inode have already been made (ie when we set i_update_core and called mark_inode_dirty_sync()) so there is no need to dirty it in this transaction. I'll keep digging. Thanks.