[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <163943256925.22433.4500548806192726621@noble.neil.brown.name>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:56:09 +1100
From: "NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.de>
To: "Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: "Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>, "Jens Axboe" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] reiserfs: don't use congestion_wait()
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 10-12-21 15:27:44, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2021, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Wed 17-11-21 15:34:42, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Block devices do not, in general, report congestion any more, so this
> > > > congestion_wait() is effectively just a sleep.
> > > >
> > > > It isn't entirely clear what is being waited for, but as we only wait
> > > > when j_async_throttle is elevated, it seems reasonable to stop waiting
> > > > when j_async_throttle becomes zero - or after the same timeout.
> > > >
> > > > So change to use wait_event_event_timeout() for waiting, and
> > > > wake_up_var() to signal an end to waiting.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea who might take this.... Jens and Jan have both landed
> > > > reiserfs patches recently...
> > >
> > > Yeah, I guess I can take this one. Honestly the whole code around
> > > j_async_throttle looks a bit suspicious but your patch does not make it
> > > worse so it looks safe to me :).
> >
> > Hi,
> > I don't see this in linux-next. Should I ??
>
> No, my fault. I'm sorry. I didn't push out the resulting branch. Fixed now.
>
Yes- I see it in your for-next branch now. Thanks a lot!
NeilBrown
Powered by blists - more mailing lists