Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 15 10月, 2007 1 次提交
    • C
      [XFS] superblock endianess annotations · 2bdf7cd0
      由 Christoph Hellwig 提交于 
      Creates a new xfs_dsb_t that is __be annotated and keeps xfs_sb_t for the
incore one. xfs_xlatesb is renamed to xfs_sb_to_disk and only handles the
incore -> disk conversion. A new helper xfs_sb_from_disk handles the other
direction and doesn't need the slightly hacky table-driven approach
because we only ever read the full sb from disk.

The handling of shared r/o filesystems has been buggy on little endian
system and fixing this required shuffling around of some code in that
area.

SGI-PV: 968563
SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:29477a
Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: NTim Shimmin <tes@sgi.com>
      2bdf7cd0
  3. 14 7月, 2007 3 次提交
    • D
      [XFS] Apply transaction delta counts atomically to incore counters · 45c34141
      由 David Chinner 提交于 
      With the per-cpu superblock counters, batch updates are no longer atomic
across the entire batch of changes. This is not an issue if each
individual change in the batch is applied atomically. Unfortunately, free
block count changes are not applied atomically, and they are applied in a
manner guaranteed to cause problems.

Essentially, the free block count reservation that the transaction took
initially is returned to the in core counters before a second delta takes
away what is used. because these two operations are not atomic, we can
race with another thread that can use the returned transaction reservation
before the transaction takes the space away again and we can then get
ENOSPC being reported in a spot where we don't have an ENOSPC condition,
nor should we ever see one there.

Fix it up by rolling the two deltas into the one so it can be applied
safely (i.e. atomically) to the incore counters.

SGI-PV: 964465
SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:28796a
Signed-off-by: NDavid Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NTim Shimmin <tes@sgi.com>
      45c34141
    • D
      [XFS] Fix the transaction flags to make lazy superblock counters work. · 210c6f1c
      由 David Chinner 提交于 
      SGI-PV: 964999
SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:28653a
Signed-off-by: NDavid Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NTim Shimmin <tes@sgi.com>
      210c6f1c
    • D
      [XFS] Lazy Superblock Counters · 92821e2b
      由 David Chinner 提交于 
      When we have a couple of hundred transactions on the fly at once, they all
typically modify the on disk superblock in some way.
create/unclink/mkdir/rmdir modify inode counts, allocation/freeing modify
free block counts.

When these counts are modified in a transaction, they must eventually lock
the superblock buffer and apply the mods. The buffer then remains locked
until the transaction is committed into the incore log buffer. The result
of this is that with enough transactions on the fly the incore superblock
buffer becomes a bottleneck.

The result of contention on the incore superblock buffer is that
transaction rates fall - the more pressure that is put on the superblock
buffer, the slower things go.

The key to removing the contention is to not require the superblock fields
in question to be locked. We do that by not marking the superblock dirty
in the transaction. IOWs, we modify the incore superblock but do not
modify the cached superblock buffer. In short, we do not log superblock
modifications to critical fields in the superblock on every transaction.
In fact we only do it just before we write the superblock to disk every
sync period or just before unmount.

This creates an interesting problem - if we don't log or write out the
fields in every transaction, then how do the values get recovered after a
crash? the answer is simple - we keep enough duplicate, logged information
in other structures that we can reconstruct the correct count after log
recovery has been performed.

It is the AGF and AGI structures that contain the duplicate information;
after recovery, we walk every AGI and AGF and sum their individual
counters to get the correct value, and we do a transaction into the log to
correct them. An optimisation of this is that if we have a clean unmount
record, we know the value in the superblock is correct, so we can avoid
the summation walk under normal conditions and so mount/recovery times do
not change under normal operation.

One wrinkle that was discovered during development was that the blocks
used in the freespace btrees are never accounted for in the AGF counters.
This was once a valid optimisation to make; when the filesystem is full,
the free space btrees are empty and consume no space. Hence when it
matters, the "accounting" is correct. But that means the when we do the
AGF summations, we would not have a correct count and xfs_check would
complain. Hence a new counter was added to track the number of blocks used
by the free space btrees. This is an *on-disk format change*.

As a result of this, lazy superblock counters are a mkfs option and at the
moment on linux there is no way to convert an old filesystem. This is
possible - xfs_db can be used to twiddle the right bits and then
xfs_repair will do the format conversion for you. Similarly, you can
convert backwards as well. At some point we'll add functionality to
xfs_admin to do the bit twiddling easily....

SGI-PV: 964999
SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:28652a
Signed-off-by: NDavid Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NTim Shimmin <tes@sgi.com>
      92821e2b
  5. 08 5月, 2007 1 次提交
  7. 10 2月, 2007 1 次提交
  9. 20 6月, 2006 1 次提交
  11. 09 6月, 2006 3 次提交
  13. 29 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  15. 17 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  17. 14 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  19. 11 1月, 2006 2 次提交
  21. 02 11月, 2005 4 次提交
  23. 02 9月, 2005 1 次提交
  25. 21 6月, 2005 2 次提交
  27. 17 4月, 2005 1 次提交
    • L
      Linux-2.6.12-rc2 · 1da177e4
      由 Linus Torvalds 提交于 
      Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.

Let it rip!
      1da177e4