On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:56:21AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 15:06 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Instead of finding the per-ag and then taking and releasing the pagb_lock > > for every single busy extent completed sort the list of busy extents and > > only switch betweens AGs where nessecary. This becomes especially important > > with the online discard support which will hit this lock more often. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > I said this looked good before, but since you haven't > indicated that here yet, I'll make one more comment. > > Both places that call (the new) xfs_alloc_busy_clear() > precede the call with a call to xfs_alloc_busy_sort(). > Considering that, and the fact that xfs_alloc_busy_clear() > depends on the list being sorted for correct (or at least > efficient) operation, I think you should just embed the > list_sort() call in xfs_alloc_busy_clear(). > > There would then be no real need to define the > xfs_alloc_busy_sort() helper (just call list_sort() > directly), and you can move the definition of > xfs_busy_extent_ag_cmp() up in the file and give > it private scope. I agree with this - sorting the list externally just seems to complicate the API and means callers need to remember to sort the list first... Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
