spin_unlock(&transaction->t_handle_lock);
spin_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
out:
- if (new_transaction)
- kfree(new_transaction);
+ kfree(new_transaction);
return ret;
}
journal_cancel_revoke(handle, jh);
out:
- if (frozen_buffer)
- kfree(frozen_buffer);
+ kfree(frozen_buffer);
JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "exit");
return error;
jbd_unlock_bh_state(bh);
out:
journal_put_journal_head(jh);
- if (committed_data)
- kfree(committed_data);
+ kfree(committed_data);
return err;
}
transaction_t *transaction = handle->h_transaction;
journal_t *journal = transaction->t_journal;
int old_handle_count, err;
+ pid_t pid;
J_ASSERT(transaction->t_updates > 0);
J_ASSERT(journal_current_handle() == handle);
* It doesn't cost much - we're about to run a commit and sleep
* on IO anyway. Speeds up many-threaded, many-dir operations
* by 30x or more...
+ *
+ * But don't do this if this process was the most recent one to
+ * perform a synchronous write. We do this to detect the case where a
+ * single process is doing a stream of sync writes. No point in waiting
+ * for joiners in that case.
*/
- if (handle->h_sync) {
+ pid = current->pid;
+ if (handle->h_sync && journal->j_last_sync_writer != pid) {
+ journal->j_last_sync_writer = pid;
do {
old_handle_count = transaction->t_handle_count;
schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
* while the data is part of a transaction. Yes?
*/
int journal_try_to_free_buffers(journal_t *journal,
- struct page *page, int unused_gfp_mask)
+ struct page *page, gfp_t unused_gfp_mask)
{
struct buffer_head *head;
struct buffer_head *bh;