From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46142 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751909AbdBFQnT (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:43:19 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:43:18 -0500 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: don't fail xfs_extent_busy allocation Message-ID: <20170206164318.GF57865@bfoster.bfoster> References: <1485715421-17182-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1485715421-17182-2-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20170203152052.GB45388@bfoster.bfoster> <20170204095040.GA18472@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170204095040.GA18472@lst.de> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 10:50:40AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:20:52AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 07:43:38PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > We don't just need the structure to track busy extents which can be > > > avoided with a synchronous transaction, but also to keep track of > > > pending discard. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > --- > > > > Looks fine, though I wonder if we should create a kmem_cache similar to > > all of the other log item structures and whatnot... > > Using the isolation of a slab cache for such a short lived structure > seems counter productive. I was thinking more about the repeated allocation/free of said structures than lifetime, particularly since we've converted an opportunistic allocation to a required/sleeping one. Just a thought though.. looking again, should we have KM_NOFS here as well? Brian > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html