On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:00:25PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> On 08/13/13 16:46, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:03:19AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> >>On 08/12/13 05:50, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >>>From: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> >> >>>When a transaction is cancelled and the buffer log item is clean in >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >>why is a clean buffer on the AIL? Racing with a completion handler? >> > >> >"clean" means that it wasn't dirtied in the transaction - it can be >> >in the AIL and holding a reference count that way. >> >> I am wondering because it should not have made it into the CIL if it >> was not dirtied in a transaction - at least according to the the log >> item descriptor flag at least. > > CIL != AIL. IOWs, the bli_refcount going to zero doesn't always By the way, can you explain what the difference is between CIL and AIL? > mean the bli should be freed. All a zero value means is that it is > not tracked by any transaction. If the item is not going to be > placed in the AIL (or not already in the AIL) then it can be > released (freed). Clean or aborted items are not going into the AIL, > so they can be freed immeidately. Everything else needs to avoid > freeing the item until the correct state is reached, even if the ref > count goes to zero. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Regards, Zhi Yong Wu _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
