On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:00:15PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 10:00:42AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
We're not trying to be perfect here, we're trying to be fast :).
Be even faster with smp_rmb() :)
Arne made me think about this again. Let's analyze it in more detail:
On 06/10/2011 01:47 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:00:15PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 10:00:42AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
We're not trying to be perfect here, we're trying to be fast :).
Be even faster with smp_rmb() :)
Arne made me think about
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 04:44:09PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -2932,6 +2932,8 @@ static int update_space_info(struct btrfs_fs_info
*info, u64 flags,
found-full = 0;
found-force_alloc = CHUNK_ALLOC_NO_FORCE;
On 06/09/2011 05:45 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 04:44:09PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -2932,6 +2932,8 @@ static int update_space_info(struct btrfs_fs_info
*info, u64 flags,
found-full = 0;
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 10:00:42AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
We're not trying to be perfect here, we're trying to be fast :).
Be even faster with smp_rmb() :)
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
