On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 14:23 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Replace i_pin_wait, which is only used during synchronous inode flushing
> with a bit waitqueue. This trades off a much smaller inode against
> slightly slower wakeup performance, and saves 12 (32-bit) or 20 (64-bit)
> bytes in the XFS inode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
One minor suggestion, plus some discussion from
inside my head below.
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
. . .
> @@ -2163,14 +2163,29 @@ xfs_iunpin_nowait(
>
> }
>
> +static void
> +__xfs_iunpin_wait(
> + struct xfs_inode *ip)
> +{
> + wait_queue_head_t *wq = bit_waitqueue(&ip->i_flags, __XFS_IPINNED_BIT);
> + DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(q, &ip->i_flags, __XFS_IPINNED_BIT);
In your last patch, you used "wait" as the name
rather than "q". Minor consistency nit...
> + xfs_iunpin(ip);
> +
This initially struck me as unsafe or something,
assuming the inode was pinned. But I was thinking
of it more like an unlock request, which it is not.
It's more like unplugging something so the inode
will eventually get unpinned. (Just thinking aloud
here, nevermind me...)
> + do {
> + prepare_to_wait(wq, &q.wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + if (xfs_ipincount(ip))
> + io_schedule();
> + } while (xfs_ipincount(ip));
> + finish_wait(wq, &q.wait);
> +}
> +
. . .
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
