Josef Bacik wrote on 2016/04/22 14:23 -0400:
On 04/22/2016 02:21 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
+ /*
+ * Force parent root to be updated, as we recorded it before so
its
+ * last_trans == cur_transid.
+ * Or it won't be committed again onto disk after later
+ * insert_dir_item()
+ */
+ if (!ret)
+ record_root_in_trans(trans, parent, 1);
+ return ret;
+}
NACK, holy shit we aren't adding a special transaction commit only
for qgroup snapshots. Figure out a different way. Thanks,
Yeah I saw that. To be fair, we run a whole lot of the transaction stuff
multiple times (at least from my reading) so I'm really unclear on
what the
performance impact is.
Do you have any suggestion though? We've been banging our heads
against this
for a while now and as slow as this patch might be, it actually works
where
nothing else has so far.
I'm less concerned about committing another transaction and more
concerned about the fact that it is an special variant of the
transaction commit. If this goes wrong, or at some point in the future
we fail to update it along with btrfs_transaction_commit we suddenly are
corrupting metadata. If we have to commit a transaction then call
btrfs_commit_transaction(), don't open code a stripped down version,
here be dragons. Thanks,
Josef
Yes, I also don't like the dirty hack.
Although the problem is, we have no other good choice.
If we can call commit_transaction() that's the best case, but the
problem is, in create_pending_snapshots(), we are already inside
commit_transaction().
Or commit_transaction() can be called inside commit_transaction()?
Thanks,
Qu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
