On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 11:22:38AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 07:43:41PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Instead we submit the discard requests and use another workqueue to > > release the extents from the extent busy list. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/xfs/xfs_discard.c | 29 ------------------ > > fs/xfs/xfs_discard.h | 1 - > > fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > fs/xfs/xfs_log_priv.h | 1 + > > fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 1 + > > fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 8 +++++ > > fs/xfs/xfs_super.h | 2 ++ > > 7 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > > > ... > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c > > index 4e9feb1..7a74c9f 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c > > @@ -1057,6 +1057,7 @@ xfs_unmountfs( > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&mp->m_cowblocks_work); > > > > xfs_fs_unreserve_ag_blocks(mp); > > + flush_workqueue(xfs_discard_wq); > > Shouldn't this happen after we force the log? Yes. > Also, now that discards are async with respect to log flush, what > prevents breaking down the fs completely before we ever get a reply from > disk? E.g., don't we have to wait on in-flight discards before we bother > to wait on the wq? Can you explain in which contex you mean this? I'm a bit lost on this comment unfortunately. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
