From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [192.26.58.22]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m8Q1awt2016678 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:36:58 -0700 Message-ID: <48DC3D13.1010805@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:38:27 +1000 From: Peter Leckie MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Use atomic_t and wait_event to track dquot pincount References: <48D9C1DD.6030607@sgi.com> <48D9EB8F.1070104@sgi.com> <48D9EF6E.8010505@sgi.com> <20080924074604.GK5448@disturbed> <48D9F718.4010905@sgi.com> <20080925010318.GB27997@disturbed> <48DB4F3F.8040307@sgi.com> <20080926003401.GG27997@disturbed> <48DC3BBB.4080807@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <48DC3BBB.4080807@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 Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, xfs-dev@sgi.com Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > The underlying problem has nothing to do with xfs_qm_dqflush() - the > spurious wakeups are caused by calls to wake_up_process() that > arbitrarily > wake up a process that is in a state where it shouldn't be woken up. If > we don't fix the spurious wakeups then we could easily re-introduce this > problem again. If xfs_qm_dqflush() should be non-blocking then that's a > separate change and it sounds like a good change too. Ok so what do we want to do. It almost sounds like there are 3 issues I need to solve, first clean up the code, second make xfs_qm_dqflush() non blocking, and 3ed fix up the spurious wakeups. Should I propose 3 patches to fix each of these issues? Pete