[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110510150055.GA7835@localhost>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 23:00:55 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] writeback: introduce
writeback_control.inodes_cleaned
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:52:00PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 10-05-11 10:23:36, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 10:36:14PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Fri 06-05-11 11:08:24, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > The flusher works on dirty inodes in batches, and may quit prematurely
> > > > if the batch of inodes happen to be metadata-only dirtied: in this case
> > > > wbc->nr_to_write won't be decreased at all, which stands for "no pages
> > > > written" but also mis-interpreted as "no progress".
> > > >
> > > > So introduce writeback_control.inodes_cleaned to count the inodes get
> > > > cleaned. A non-zero value means there are some progress on writeback,
> > > > in which case more writeback can be tried.
> > > >
> > > > about v1: The initial version was to count successful ->write_inode()
> > > > calls. However it leads to busy loops for sync() over NFS, because NFS
> > > > ridiculously returns 0 (success) while at the same time redirties the
> > > > inode. The NFS case can be trivially fixed, however there may be more
> > > > hidden bugs in other filesystems..
> > > I think Christoph didn't like this patch
> > > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/4/123) and suggested that inodes_cleaned
> > > should remain local to fs-writeback.c...
> >
> > Yes, he didn't like introducing one more field to writeback_control,
> > which will be removed in patch 14. (It will be a lot of fuss to move
> > patch 14 here or move this logic after patch 14.)
> Yes, I've noticed (after I've sent this email) that you eventually remove
> the code later in the series :). So I wonder would it be that much work to
> just drop this patch? It's kind of dumb to add a new code which is removed
> a few patches later. But I'm stopping bitching about this now ;).
OK, thanks. I'm just uncomfortable that something will be broken in
between some commits if simply drop this patch :)
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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