On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 10:50:40AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:20:52AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 07:43:38PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > We don't just need the structure to track busy extents which can be > > > avoided with a synchronous transaction, but also to keep track of > > > pending discard. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > Looks fine, though I wonder if we should create a kmem_cache similar to > > all of the other log item structures and whatnot... > > Using the isolation of a slab cache for such a short lived structure > seems counter productive. I was thinking more about the repeated allocation/free of said structures than lifetime, particularly since we've converted an opportunistic allocation to a required/sleeping one. Just a thought though.. looking again, should we have KM_NOFS here as well? Brian > -- > 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 -- 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
