[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFz2f8969nQAR6=TUTQOYA7T9vmcYJKGCyejYWYZ9a5S_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:37:19 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs-writeback: drop wb->list_lock during blk_finish_plug()
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> How about we instead:
>
> (a) revert that commit d353d7587 as broken (because it clearly is)
>
> (b) add a big honking comment about the fact that we hold 'list_lock'
> in writeback_sb_inodes()
>
> (c) move the plugging up to wb_writeback() and writeback_inodes_wb()
> _outside_ the spinlock.
Ok, I've done (a) and (b) in my tree. And attached is the totally
untested patch for (c). It looks ObviouslyCorrect(tm), but since this
is a performance issue, I'm not going to commit it without some more
ACK's from people.
I obviously think this is a *much* better approach than dropping and
retaking the lock, but there might be something silly I'm missing.
For example, maybe we want to unplug and replug around the
"inode_sleep_on_writeback()" in wb_writeback()? So while the revert
was a no-brainer, this one I really want people to think about.
Linus
View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/plain" (1102 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists