On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:13:51AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:57:48PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > FWIW, I've got a prototype that converts the per-cpu counters to the > > generic per-cpu counter infrastructure. It chops out almost all the > > xfs_icsb_* stuff (including xfs_icsb_modify_counters()) and has a > > diffstat of: > > Sounds good - I always throught of the balanced per-cpu counters as > infrastructure that really shouldn't sit inside XFS. The only reason I implemented them like that in the first place was that there was no generic per-cpu counter infrastructure in 2.6.15... ;) > > It needs a significant cleanup of xfs_mod_incore_sb() before/after > > the conversion which I haven't done yet because I haven't quite got > > my new percpu_counter_test_and_add_delta() function working > > correctly yet. I spotted this locking problem when testing the > > patch... > > > > That said, there's no reason why my percpu counter code needs to run > > through xfs_mod_incore_sb() at all. If we have a separate path for > > per-cpu counters then I can rework my code on top of that.... > > We'll always need a low-level function to to the actual superblock > updates and a high-level one modifying the per-cpu counters. I don't > think the exact naming matters too much. Agreed. I think it's probably best to wait for your cleanup patches before reworking the counter implementation completely, though. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
