[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110513033605.GC8016@localhost>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:36:05 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] writeback: introduce
writeback_control.inodes_cleaned
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 06:44:20AM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:57:09PM +0800, 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.
>
> Why introduce a new field for this?
Yeah sorry, but this is an intermediate field that will be removed in
patch 14.
> Just decrement nr_to_write for every write_inode() call made in
> writeback_single_inode()....
There are two problems
- nr_to_write has always been "# of pages written" and writeback_sb_inodes()
is actually making use of it to do page accounting in work->nr_pages.
- write_inode() does not always succeed, and its return value is not
reliable on every filesystem.. (I actually tried this approach in v1
and found sync(1) hang on NFS)
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