[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110314231753.GF8120@thunk.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:17:53 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: G@...nk.org, Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@....de, l@...per.es
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 02:20:32PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I'm a bit nervous about exposing WB_SYNC_NONE to userspace, because
> > its semantics are *definitely* hard to describe. For example, at the
> > moment if you do a WB_SYNC_NONE writeback, the writeback code will
> > clamp the amount of data written back for each inode to
> > MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES (1024) pages.
>
> Wha? It does? When did that get broken?
Oops, sorry, I misread the code in wb_writeback(). My bad! I
misinterpreted what write_chunk does in that function.
MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES now really is the minimum amount of pages that
wb_writeback() will request the file system to write back. I'm not
sure why we bother with write_chunk any more, but it shouldn't be
doing any harm any more.
- Ted
--
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