[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150912021529.GD4150@ret.masoncoding.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 22:15:29 -0400
From: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
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 05:52:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Are we really ok with waiting synchronously for an inode while holding
> > the plug? No chance of deadlock (waiting for IO that we've plugged)?
> > That issue is true even of the current code, though, and I have _not_
> > really thought that through, it's just a worry.
>
> Never mind. We still flush the plug on explicit scheduling events. I
> wonder why I thought we got rid of that. Some kind of "senior moment",
But flushing on schedule is a little different. It ends up calling
blk_schedule_flush_plug() which will hand off work to kblockd through
blk_run_queue_async()
Not a huge deal, but if we're scheduling to wait for that IO, we should
really run the plug ourselves so that we're not waiting for kblockd too.
-chris
--
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