On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:12:36PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote: > 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? Documentation/filesystems/xfs-delayed-logging-design.txt Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
