On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 09:08:40AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 07:54:02AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > This is the second version of the generic per-cpu counter rework > > patch series. The first version can be found here: > > > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2015-02/msg00000.html > > > > New in V2: > > > > - drop the moving of the struct xfs_sb to xfs_super.h > > - fixed all the little things that Christoph and Brian noted. > > - keep the per-cpu counters in the struct xfs_mount and keep the > > functions to sync them with the struct xfs_sb values when read > > from disk or written to disk. > > - integrated Christoph Hellwig's additional cleanup patch. This was > > done by: > > - intergating xfs_mod_XXX factoring into the relevant percpu > > counter conversion patch > > - separating out xfs_mod_frextents into it's won patch > > - separating out the replacement of > > xfs_mod_incore_sb_batched > > - doing all the now unused API removal in a separate patch > > > > The series passes xfstests without regressions, and no scalability > > issues have been seen in my performance tests on a 16p VM. SGI - you > > still need to test this, though. :) > > > > Thoughts, comments? > > > > All in all this looks pretty good to me save a couple notes pointed out > in the patches. In a quick test, this handles the imaxct overshoot > problem Eric noted much better than the current implementation. That > said, it's still not precise. Right. > My understanding is that's fine, but I wonder if we want to tack on a > variant of Eric's original patch as well so when we still do overshoot > imaxpct (albeit by much less than before: I reproduce an overshoot of > <100 inodes vs several thousand) we at least report an accurate inode > count. Thoughts? Yes, Eric's patch is still necessary. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
