[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101115112732.GA15953@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 06:27:32 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc: "Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd2: avoid the concurrent data writeback
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:59:43PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> + *
> + * Sometimes when this get called, the host inode may be under data
> + * syncing initiated by flush thread(especially for a large file), and
> + * in such situation, we should skip this path of writeback
> */
> static int journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space *mapping)
> {
> @@ -181,6 +185,13 @@ static int journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space *mapping)
> .range_end = i_size_read(mapping->host),
> };
>
> + spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> + if (mapping->host->i_state & I_SYNC) {
> + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> +
inode_lock is not exported to modules, and that's for a pretty good
reason. I think you want to change this code at a higher level to not
compete with the flusher threads at all.
--
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