On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 08:19:40AM -0400, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > 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. > Ok. > Regarding the mount delay, Darrick suggested that maybe we need to get > all these scans into one place if possible, for efficiency. > These buffers should be cached after the first scan, right? As Dave mentioned on one of the previous threads, I think the I/O load is more of a factor than anything else. I'd rather see us try to eliminate these kinds of scans rather than condense them into some kind of infrastructure that tries to self-justify their existence. But as previously mentioned, I think it's reasonable to add this one for now and optimize it away separately. Brian > -Eric > -- > 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
