xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:14:37 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100106224944.GW13802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1262649861-28530-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100106180800.GA9613@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100106224944.GW13802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:49:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 01:08:00PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Btw, after this series XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI_ELSE_SYNC is also unused,
> > might be worth to throw something like the patch below in to clean
> > up xfs_iflush:
> 
> Yes, makes sense. I'll add the patch to my QA series after updating
> it for the slight changes to the unmount reclaim I ahd in the
> second posting of the patch. Can I get a signoff from you for this?


Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>

> 
> > I'm also not sure we do enough of the noblock calls either with or
> > without your series.  There seem to be a lot more non-blocking sync
> > calls than iflush calls.
> 
> I don't quite follow - inode flushes from the bdi threads should be
> the majority of flushes (i.e. from xfs_fs_write_inode()) and they
> are non-blocking. the xfssyncd does delwri writeback (maybe that
> should be non-blocking and then we can get rid of that flag, too),
> so the only sync inode writeback path is from xfs_fs_write_inode()
> for sync flushing, as well as the unmount reclaim path....

Sorry, I mean non-blocking delwri calls above.  xfs_sync_worker should
certainly be non-blocking as the whole daemon is operating that way. And
possibly xfs_sync_attr as well.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>