[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110107072934.GA2849@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 02:29:34 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 8/8] fs: add i_op->sync_inode
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 02:24:30AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 03:47:34PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > No, you misunderstand 1. I am saying they should be treated as
> > WB_SYNC_NONE.
> >
> > In fact 2 would cause much more IO, because dirty writeout would
> > never clean them so it will just keep writing them out. I don't
> > know how 2 could be feasible.
>
> WB_SYNC_NONE means ->write_inode behaves non-blocking. That is
> we do not block on memory allocations, and we do not take locks
> blocking. Most journaling filesystems currently take the easy
> way out an make it a no-op due to that, but take a look at XFS
> how complicated it is to avoid the blocking if you want a non-noop
> implementation.
Btw, there's an easy way how we could get this right, in fact
the write_inode in XFS is already trying to do it, it's just the
caller not copying with it:
- if we can't get locks for a non-blocking ->write_inode we return
EAGAIN, and the callers sets the dirty bits again.
--
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