From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q0NJMNGA132710 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:22:23 -0600 Message-ID: <4F1DB36E.3060207@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:22:22 -0600 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch 04/12] xfs: cleanup xfs_log_space_wake References: <20111212141346.986825692@bombadil.infradead.org> <20111212141434.065702206@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20111212141434.065702206@bombadil.infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 01/-10/63 13:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Remove the now unused opportunistic parameter, and use the the > xlog_writeq_wake and xlog_reserveq_wake helpers now that we don't have > to care about the opportunistic wakeups. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Looks good. My only concern is the way that xlog_grant_push_ail() tries to kick start the writing of the log. It seems to me that a combination of very large log requests could plug the log until the next sync. I am not sure if that is why the opportunistic wakeups were put in or not. If this is an issue, there are better ways than opportunistic wakeups in the unlock code (patch3 xfs: remove xfs_trans_unlocked_item). Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs