On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 06:14:35AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 09:08:46PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > This might actually be able to trigger the first one, but otherwise > > > just means we're doing a pass through insert which will find it. > > > For pure lookups using xfs_buf_incore it could cause us to miss buffer > > > invalidation. The fix for that is bigger and has bigger implications > > > because it not requires all b_hold increments to be done under d_lock. > > > > Just to be clear, should this sentence say > > "...because it *now* requires"? > > Yes. <nod> > > > This causes more contention, but as releasing the buffer always takes > > > the lock it can't be too horrible. I also have a only minimally > > > tested series to switch it over to a lockref here: > > > > > > http://git.infradead.org/?p=users/hch/xfs.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/xfs-buffer-locking > > > > Will take a look; some of those patches look familiar. ;) > > Well, the first batch after these fixes are the buffer cleanups I > reposted last week that you've mostly but not entirely reviewed. The > reminder only really depends on them for changed context. That should be done now. :) --D
