On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:55:35AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > + * pass through will see the stale flag set on the inode.
> > + */
> > + error = xfs_iflush(ip, SYNC_TRYLOCK | sync_mode);
> > if (sync_mode & SYNC_WAIT) {
> > + if (error == EAGAIN) {
> > + xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > + /* backoff longer than in xfs_ifree_cluster */
> > + delay(2);
>
> Do we really need the delay here? It seems like we'd rather want to
> keep going with scanning the next inode cluster and return here from
> xfs_reclaim_inodes.
I did that because SYNC_WAIT semantics mean "block until the inode
is reclaimed". This is the slow, reliable reclaim path that doesn't
return until the inode is reclaimed, so we have to have a backoff
here to allow xfs_ifree_cluster() to complete it's backoff and gain
the locks successfully thereby allowing the inode to be reclaimed
successfully.
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.h b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.h
> > index 32ba662..0ae48ff 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.h
> > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ typedef struct xfs_sync_work {
> >
> > int xfs_syncd_init(struct xfs_mount *mp);
> > void xfs_syncd_stop(struct xfs_mount *mp);
> > +void xfs_syncd_queue_sync(struct xfs_mount *mp, int flags);
>
> This hunk belongs into a different patch.
Oops. Will fix.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
