From: Tao Ma <[email protected]>
summarise_journal_usage seems to be obsolete for a long time,
so remove it.
Cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tao Ma <[email protected]>
---
fs/jbd/commit.c | 6 ------
fs/jbd2/commit.c | 6 ------
2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/jbd/commit.c b/fs/jbd/commit.c
index 69b1804..9cbf9e4 100644
--- a/fs/jbd/commit.c
+++ b/fs/jbd/commit.c
@@ -302,12 +302,6 @@ void journal_commit_transaction(journal_t *journal)
* all outstanding updates to complete.
*/
-#ifdef COMMIT_STATS
- spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
- summarise_journal_usage(journal);
- spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
-#endif
-
/* Do we need to erase the effects of a prior journal_flush? */
if (journal->j_flags & JFS_FLUSHED) {
jbd_debug(3, "super block updated\n");
diff --git a/fs/jbd2/commit.c b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
index 6e28000..29148a8 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/commit.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
@@ -338,12 +338,6 @@ void jbd2_journal_commit_transaction(journal_t *journal)
* all outstanding updates to complete.
*/
-#ifdef COMMIT_STATS
- spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
- summarise_journal_usage(journal);
- spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
-#endif
On Thu 05-05-11 23:54:19, Tao Ma wrote:
> From: Tao Ma <[email protected]>
>
> summarise_journal_usage seems to be obsolete for a long time,
> so remove it.
Yes. Added to my tree. Thanks.
Honza
>
> Cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Tao Ma <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/jbd/commit.c | 6 ------
> fs/jbd2/commit.c | 6 ------
> 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/jbd/commit.c b/fs/jbd/commit.c
> index 69b1804..9cbf9e4 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd/commit.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd/commit.c
> @@ -302,12 +302,6 @@ void journal_commit_transaction(journal_t *journal)
> * all outstanding updates to complete.
> */
>
> -#ifdef COMMIT_STATS
> - spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> - summarise_journal_usage(journal);
> - spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> -#endif
> -
> /* Do we need to erase the effects of a prior journal_flush? */
> if (journal->j_flags & JFS_FLUSHED) {
> jbd_debug(3, "super block updated\n");
> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/commit.c b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> index 6e28000..29148a8 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> @@ -338,12 +338,6 @@ void jbd2_journal_commit_transaction(journal_t *journal)
> * all outstanding updates to complete.
> */
>
> -#ifdef COMMIT_STATS
> - spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> - summarise_journal_usage(journal);
> - spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> -#endif
> -
> /* Do we need to erase the effects of a prior jbd2_journal_flush? */
> if (journal->j_flags & JBD2_FLUSHED) {
> jbd_debug(3, "super block updated\n");
> --
> 1.7.1
>
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
Hi,
I have a question, if only one instance of kjournald is active at
any time, and committing transaction is well separated from others, what
is need of taking j_list_lock while operating on committing
transaction's lists?
Niraj
Hello,
On Thu 05-05-11 21:48:34, Niraj Kulkarni wrote:
> I have a question, if only one instance of kjournald is active
> at any time, and committing transaction is well separated from
> others, what is need of taking j_list_lock while operating on
> committing transaction's lists?
Other processes (e.g. journal_unmap_buffer()) can occasionally manipulate
with lists of the committing transaction.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:14:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 05-05-11 23:54:19, Tao Ma wrote:
> > From: Tao Ma <[email protected]>
> >
> > summarise_journal_usage seems to be obsolete for a long time,
> > so remove it.
> Yes. Added to my tree. Thanks.
Hi Jan,
Did you take the whole patch (removing it for both jbd and jbd2) or
just for jbd? I'm fine either way, I just want to know if I need to
worry about this patch.
Thanks,
- Ted
On Sun 08-05-11 20:14:41, Ted Tso wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:14:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 05-05-11 23:54:19, Tao Ma wrote:
> > > From: Tao Ma <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > summarise_journal_usage seems to be obsolete for a long time,
> > > so remove it.
> > Yes. Added to my tree. Thanks.
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> Did you take the whole patch (removing it for both jbd and jbd2) or
> just for jbd? I'm fine either way, I just want to know if I need to
> worry about this patch.
I've taken both jbd and jbd2 parts (as I figured it's trivial enough and
won't conflict with anything anyway).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR