[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: allow reusing busy extents where safe

To: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: allow reusing busy extents where safe
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:30:24 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1301425468.3026.249.camel@doink>
References: <20110328210614.832613417@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110328210915.214513168@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1301425468.3026.249.camel@doink>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 02:04:28PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 17:06 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Allow reusing any busy extent for metadata allocations, and reusing busy
> > userdata extents for userdata allocations.  Most of the complexity is
> > propagating the userdata information from the XFS_BMAPI_METADATA flag
> > to xfs_bunmapi into the low-level extent freeing routines.  After that
> > we can just track what type of busy extent we have and treat it accordingly.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> The use of an enum value returned from
> xfs_alloc_busy_update_extent() is a good improvement.
> I'll issue the caveat here that I did not look through
> it this time as carefully as the first time.  My main
> concern was about the validity of reusing busy user data
> extents for user data, and as before I'll say I accept
> that it's OK, but I haven't worked through in my own
> mind that it is indeed safe.  If I find the time to do
> it I'll look this one over again to for reassurance...

This version doesn't actually allow userdata reallocations anymore,
I just forgot to update the patch description.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>