[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <33307c790907291828x6906e874l4d75e695116aa874@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:28:07 -0700
From: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Chad Talbott <ctalbott@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>, sandeen@...hat.com,
Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Martin Bligh<mbligh@...gle.com> wrote:
> BTW, can you explain this code at the bottom of generic_sync_sb_inodes
> for me?
>
> if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> wbc->more_io = 1;
> break;
> }
>
> I don't understand why we are setting more_io here? AFAICS, more_io
> means there's more stuff to write ... I would think we'd set this if
> nr_to_write was > 0 ?
>
> Or just have the section below brought up above this
> break check and do:
>
> if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io) || !list_empty(&sb->s_io))
> wbc->more_io = 1;
>
> Am I just misunderstanding the intent of more_io ?
I am thinking along the lines of:
@@ -638,13 +609,11 @@ sync_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb, s
iput(inode);
cond_resched();
spin_lock(&inode_lock);
- if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
- wbc->more_io = 1;
+ if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0)
break;
- }
- if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io))
- wbc->more_io = 1;
}
+ if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io) || !list_empty(&sb->s_io)
+ wbc->more_io = 1;
return; /* Leave any unwritten inodes on s_io */
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists