On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:53:00 +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
Hi Miao,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
On sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:38:42 +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
Hi Miao,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
On wed, 12 Jun
Hi Miao,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
On sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:38:42 +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
Hi Miao,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
On wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:11:02 +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
I reviewed the
Hi Miao,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
On wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:11:02 +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
I reviewed the code starting from:
69aef69a1bc154 Btrfs: don't wait for all the writers circularly during
the transaction commit
until
2ce7935bf4cdf3 Btrfs:
On sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:38:42 +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
Hi Miao,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
On wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:11:02 +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
I reviewed the code starting from:
69aef69a1bc154 Btrfs: don't wait for all the writers
Hi Miao,
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi, Alex
Could you try the following patchset?
git://github.com/miaoxie/linux-btrfs.git trans-commit-improve
I think it can avoid the problem you said below.
Note: this patchset is against chris's for-linus
On wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:11:02 +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
I reviewed the code starting from:
69aef69a1bc154 Btrfs: don't wait for all the writers circularly during
the transaction commit
until
2ce7935bf4cdf3 Btrfs: remove the time check in btrfs_commit_transaction()
It looks very good. Let me
Hi Miao,
I attempted to fix the issue by not joining a transaction that has
trans-in_commit set. I did something similar to what
wait_current_trans() does, but I did:
smp_rmb();
if (cur_trans cur_trans-in_commit) {
...
wait_event(root-fs_info-transaction_wait, !cur_trans-blocked);
...
I also
On wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:45:43 +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
Hi Miao,
I attempted to fix the issue by not joining a transaction that has
trans-in_commit set. I did something similar to what
wait_current_trans() does, but I did:
smp_rmb();
if (cur_trans cur_trans-in_commit) {
...
Hi Miao,
I am seeing another issue. Your fix prevents from TRANS_START to get
in the way of a committing transaction. But it does not prevent from
TRANS_JOIN. On the other hand, btrfs_commit_transaction has the
following loop:
do {
// attempt to do some useful stuff and/or sleep
} while
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:13:22 +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote:
Hi Miao,
I am seeing another issue. Your fix prevents from TRANS_START to get
in the way of a committing transaction. But it does not prevent from
TRANS_JOIN. On the other hand, btrfs_commit_transaction has the
following loop:
do {
Hi Miao,
thanks for the great ASCII graphics and detailed explanation!
Alex.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
On sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:49:55 +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote:
Hi Miao,
can you please explain your solution a bit more.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:16
On sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:49:55 +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote:
Hi Miao,
can you please explain your solution a bit more.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Now btrfs_commit_transaction() does this
ret = btrfs_run_ordered_operations(root, 0)
which async flushes
Hi Miao,
can you please explain your solution a bit more.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Now btrfs_commit_transaction() does this
ret = btrfs_run_ordered_operations(root, 0)
which async flushes all inodes on the ordered operations list, it introduced
Now btrfs_commit_transaction() does this
ret = btrfs_run_ordered_operations(root, 0)
which async flushes all inodes on the ordered operations list, it introduced
a deadlock that transaction-start task, transaction-commit task and the flush
workers waited for each other.
(See the following URL to
14 matches
Mail list logo
