[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110607160234.53de9f93.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:02:34 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] writeback: introduce .tagged_writepages for the
WB_SYNC_NONE sync stage
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 05:32:37 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> sync(2) is performed in two stages: the WB_SYNC_NONE sync and the
> WB_SYNC_ALL sync. Identify the first stage with .tagged_writepages 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 problem is this patch actually fixing? It sounds like there's
some livelock scenario in the WB_SYNC_NONE phase. otoh the final
paragraph implies that the WB_SYNC_NONE phase is failing to write some
pages under some situations.
Suggest that the changelog be fleshed out to cover all of this.
--
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