On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 02:41:56PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 12:16:03PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:02:16AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:46:12AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 07:46:55AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 02:23:44PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 02:36:45PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > ... > > Here's the fixes for the iget vs inactive vs freeze problems in the > > upstream kernel: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240201005217.1011010-1-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t > > > > With that sorted, are there any other issues we know about that > > running a blockgc scan during freeze might work around? > > > > The primary motivation for the scan patch was the downstream/stable > deadlock issue. The reason I posted it upstream is because when I > considered the overall behavior change, I thought it uniformly > beneficial to both contexts based on the (minor) benefits of the side > effects of the scan. You don't need me to enumerate them, and none of > them are uniquely important or worth overanalyzing. > > The only real question that matters here is do you agree with the > general reasoning for a blockgc scan during freeze, or shall I drop the > patch? I don't see any particular downside to flushing {block,inode}gc work during a freeze, other than the loss of speculative preallocations sounds painful. Does Dave's patchset to recycle NEEDS_INACTIVE inodes eliminate the stall problem? --D > Brian > > > -Dave. > > -- > > Dave Chinner > > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > >
