Hi Goldwyn, Thanks very much for the quick reply. Hi Sunil, Could you help provide more inputs?
Thanks, Joseph On 2015/3/28 0:57, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > Hi joseph, > > On 03/26/2015 09:27 PM, Joseph Qi wrote: >> Hi Goldwyn, >> I found you posted a mail to discuss about incorrect free bits setting. >> https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2012-January/008458.html >> >> In this topic, Sunil said it was because of the patch added to delay >> dropping of the dentry locks (commit ea455f8ab683) and suggested to fix >> the quota issue in a different way. >> Then you reverted the patches based on Honza's new way to fix the quota >> issue. >> https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2014-February/009662.html >> >> I have investigated these patches and still do not know how can it >> happen. >> Could you please tell me more about the case that bits to be cleared >> twice? > > I am not sure how the quota patches were related. It was a long time ago. > > However, what we fixed in Honza's patches is the way unlink is > performed. The problem was we were getting very bad performance because > of too much of journal activity. We realized that it was because the > inodes were shown as busy and hence moved orphan directory, when they > were not busy. It all came to the point that the open lock was still > being held because it was delayed/offloaded to another thread. > > I am not sure, but I guess that this delay may be messing up the > accounting between the node being the owner of the lock and the one > deleting the file (also requesting for the lock). I have not seen this > issue for a long time now so I am not sure. Perhaps Sunil may be able to > give more inputs. > > _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
