From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:30:40 -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 lAQ1UZnr028946 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:30:36 -0800 Message-ID: <474A2180.7000605@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:29:36 +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> <474A112D.2040006@sgi.com> <20071126011044.GG114266761@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20071126011044.GG114266761@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 Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:19:57AM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: >> 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. > > Wouldn't have made aany difference - the inode woul dbe marked dirty > at transaction completion... > >> 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. > > I wouldn't worry too much about this problem right now - I'm working > on moving the dirty state into the inode radix trees so i_update_core > might even go away completely soon.... > Which problem? Just the bit about dirtying the inode or will your changes allow us to log all inode changes? What's the motivation for moving the dirty state?