On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 09:53:04AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 04:21:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > @@ -554,6 +560,7 @@ xlog_cil_insert_items( > > int iovhdr_res = 0, split_res = 0, ctx_res = 0; > > int space_used; > > int order; > > + unsigned int cpu_nr; > > struct xlog_cil_pcp *cilpcp; > > > > ASSERT(tp); > > @@ -577,7 +584,12 @@ xlog_cil_insert_items( > > * can't be scheduled away between split sample/update operations that > > * are done without outside locking to serialise them. > > */ > > - cilpcp = get_cpu_ptr(cil->xc_pcp); > > + cpu_nr = get_cpu(); > > + cilpcp = this_cpu_ptr(cil->xc_pcp); > > + > > + /* Tell the future push that there was work added by this CPU. */ > > + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu_nr, &ctx->cil_pcpmask)) > > + cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu_nr, &ctx->cil_pcpmask); > > > > /* > > * We need to take the CIL checkpoint unit reservation on the first > > This code also needs the put_cpu_ptr(cil->xc_pcp) converted to > put_cpu(), even though they end up doing exactly the same thing. > > Other than that, it looks good. I'll pull this into my test trees > and give it a run... Ok, I'll look forward to seeing what happens. :) --D > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
