[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwtfUeUn=MuqSEyPiPeC5=k2xK2ULd9-5ShQAJ=4T0CvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:40:20 -1000
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: xfstests 073 regression
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>
> IOWs, what I'm asking is whether this "just move the inodes one at a
> time to a different queue" is just a bandaid for a particular
> symptom of a deeper problem we haven't realised existed....
Deeper problems in writeback? Unpossible.
The writeback code has pretty much always been just a collection of
"bandaids for particular symptoms of deeper problems". So let's just
say I'd not be shocked. But what else would you suggest? You could
just break out of the loop if you can't get the read lock, but while
the *common* case is likely that a lot of the inodes are on the same
filesystem, that's certainly not the only possible case.
Linus
--
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