From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sandeen.net ([63.231.237.45]:40986 "EHLO sandeen.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751653AbeCOMTm (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:19:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: always check for and process unlinked inodes on mount References: <83696ce6-4054-0e77-b4b8-e82a1a9fbbc3@redhat.com> <20180315121717.GA45325@bfoster.bfoster> From: Eric Sandeen Message-ID: <60f1a77c-61f7-08fc-dffd-4734b1efd322@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:19:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180315121717.GA45325@bfoster.bfoster> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Brian Foster Cc: Eric Sandeen , linux-xfs On 3/15/18 8:17 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > Have we considered anything like conditionally dirtying the log on > freeze only when there are open+unlinked files? It seems like that may > be uncommon enough to address the problem for snapshot users > (particularly the read-only use case mentioned in the cover letter), but > that's just a guess. > > Brian I did consider that, and was weighing the advantages with the disadvantages, namely unpredictable behavior for snapshots... I'm not sure how uncommon the situation really is. Regarding the mount delay, Darrick suggested that maybe we need to get all these scans into one place if possible, for efficiency. -Eric