From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p7QEJtXh103484 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:19:56 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: Don't allocate new buffers on every call to _xfs_buf_find From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20110826081132.GA3551@infradead.org> References: <1314341497-23910-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1314341497-23910-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20110826081132.GA3551@infradead.org> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:19:48 -0500 Message-ID: <1314368388.2821.6.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 04:11 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: . . . > > > > +found: > > + ASSERT(bp->b_flags & XBF_MAPPED); > > This doesn't look right to me. Various buffers like inode or remoate attrs > are unmapped, and I can't see any reason why we would assert not beeing > allowed to find them here. > > Thinking about it more I'm also not sure skipping the code to map > buffers on a straight cache hit is a good idea - there's nothing > inherent to requiring a given buffer to be mapped for all callers. I actually tripped this assert last night the first time I tried running it. -Alex _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs