[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50D12FC3.6090209@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:08:51 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] jbd: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily
On 12/18/12 8:05 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 19-12-12 02:27:10, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> With a u8 tid_t, the "else" clause from commit d9b0193 fires
>>> frequently; I really think the underlying problem is that tid_geq()
>>> etc does not properly handle wraparounds - if, say, target is 255
>>> and j_commit_request is 0, we don't know if j_commit_request
>>> is 255 tids behind, or 1 tid ahead. I have to think about that
>>> some more, unless it's obvious to someone else.
>> Well, there's no way to handle wraps better AFAICT. Tids eventually wrap
>> and if someone has stored away tid of a transaction he wants committed and
>> keeps it for a long time before using it, it can end up being anywhere
>> before / after current j_commit_request. The hope was that it takes long
>> enough to wrap around 32-bit tids. If this happens often in practice we may
>> have to switch to 64-bit tids (in memory, on disk 32-bit tids are enough
>> because of limited journal size).
I was wondering if, since the tid_g*() functions only work if the
distance is half the unsigned int space, we can force a commit at some
point if j_transaction_sequence has gotten too far ahead? I'm not sure
where or if that could be done...
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists