[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160229210614.GC17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:06:15 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-linus] writeback: flush inode cgroup wb
switches instead of pinning super_block
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 03:58:37PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:54:28PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > This patch removes the problematic super_block pinning and instead
> > > makes generic_shutdown_super() flush in-flight wb switches. wb
> > > switches are now executed on a dedicated isw_wq so that they can be
> > > flushed and isw_nr_in_flight keeps track of the number of in-flight wb
> > > switches so that flushing can be avoided in most cases.
> >
> > Wait a bloody minute. What's to prevent shrink_dcache_for_umount() from
> > dirtying more inodes, triggering more of the same?
>
> Hmmm? The flushing is done after shrink_dcache_for_umount() and
> sync_filesystems(). Aren't inodes supposed to stay clean after that?
s/shrink_dcache_for_umount/fsnotify_unmount_inodes/ - sorry.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists