On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:11:33AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> But that doesn't fix the problem of taking the hash lock in evict()
> when it is not necessary. If everything sets I_NEEDS_WRITEBACK, and
> we still fake hashing the inode, how are do we know that we don't
> need to unhash it in
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:11:33AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
But that doesn't fix the problem of taking the hash lock in evict()
when it is not necessary. If everything sets I_NEEDS_WRITEBACK, and
we still fake hashing the inode, how are do we know that we don't
need to unhash it in evict()?
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 01:12:35AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:15:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner
> >
> > Some filesystems don't use the VFS inode hash and fake the fact they
> > are hashed so that all the writeback code works correctly.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:15:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner
>
> Some filesystems don't use the VFS inode hash and fake the fact they
> are hashed so that all the writeback code works correctly. However,
> this means the evict() path still tries to remove the inode from the
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:15:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
From: Dave Chinner dchin...@redhat.com
Some filesystems don't use the VFS inode hash and fake the fact they
are hashed so that all the writeback code works correctly. However,
this means the evict() path still tries to remove the
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 01:12:35AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:15:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
From: Dave Chinner dchin...@redhat.com
Some filesystems don't use the VFS inode hash and fake the fact they
are hashed so that all the writeback code works
On Wed 31-07-13 14:15:41, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner
>
> Some filesystems don't use the VFS inode hash and fake the fact they
> are hashed so that all the writeback code works correctly. However,
> this means the evict() path still tries to remove the inode from the
> hash, meaning
On Wed 31-07-13 14:15:41, Dave Chinner wrote:
From: Dave Chinner dchin...@redhat.com
Some filesystems don't use the VFS inode hash and fake the fact they
are hashed so that all the writeback code works correctly. However,
this means the evict() path still tries to remove the inode from the
From: Dave Chinner
Some filesystems don't use the VFS inode hash and fake the fact they
are hashed so that all the writeback code works correctly. However,
this means the evict() path still tries to remove the inode from the
hash, meaning that the inode_hash_lock() needs to be taken
From: Dave Chinner dchin...@redhat.com
Some filesystems don't use the VFS inode hash and fake the fact they
are hashed so that all the writeback code works correctly. However,
this means the evict() path still tries to remove the inode from the
hash, meaning that the inode_hash_lock() needs to be
10 matches
Mail list logo