[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110512224013.GH19446@dastard>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:40:13 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] writeback: introduce .tagged_sync for the
WB_SYNC_NONE sync stage
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:57:07PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> sync(2) is performed in two stages: the WB_SYNC_NONE sync and the
> WB_SYNC_ALL sync. Tag the first stage with wbc.tagged_sync and do
> livelock prevention for it, too.
>
> Note that writeback_inodes_sb() is called by not only sync(), they are
> treated the same because the other callers also need livelock prevention.
>
> Impact: It changes the order in which pages/inodes are synced to disk.
> Now in the WB_SYNC_NONE stage, it won't proceed to write the next inode
> until finished with the current inode.
What about all the filesystems that implement their own
.writepages()/write_cache_pages() functions or have
have special code that checks WB_SYNC_ALL in .writepages (e.g. gfs2,
ext4, btrfs and perhaps others). Don't they all need to be aware of
this tagged_sync field?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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