On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 05:26:51PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > If the choice is between adding a proper transaction here, or not > doing this at all, I'd rather just not do it at all. Of course, I'd > like to work out some kind of compromise, like only updating the > superblock when there is already a shadow BH that is being used to > write to the journal, or similar. In practice, the superblock is never going to modified in normal operations, unless a resize happens to be happening. Since we already force the superblock summary counters to be correct during an unmount or file system freeze, we really only need this so that it's correct after a file system crash. I don't think people generally end up calling statfs() all that frequently, so it's not clear how much adding a 30 second throttle would help. Maybe we should just not bother trying to update the superblock at all on a statfs()? Hmm... - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
