[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110630121558.GF28475@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:15:58 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: Don't wait for completion in
writeback_inodes_sb_nr
On Wed 29-06-11 16:12:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 09:15:18PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > True but writeback_single_inode() has in it:
> > if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL) {
> > int err = filemap_fdatawait(mapping);
> > if (ret == 0)
> > ret = err;
> > }
> > So we end up waiting much earlier. Probably we should remove this wait
> > but that will need some audit I guess.
>
> Uhh, indeed. We'll need this wait for things like sync_inode, though.
Yes. Actually, specifically for filesystems like XFS which update inode
after IO completion we would need more passes to be efficient and correct:
for all inodes
fdatawrite
for all inodes
fdatawait
for all inodes
write_inode
for all inodes
wait for inode IO
But maybe this could be handled by having new WB_SYNC_ mode indicating
that writeback_single_inode() should not bother waiting (thus we'd really
end up waiting in sync_inodes_sb()) and then XFS and other filesystems that
need it would writeout inodes in their sync_fs() implementation (possibly
using a generic helper)?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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