[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 08/27] xfs: improve sync behaviour in the fact of aggressive

To: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/27] xfs: improve sync behaviour in the fact of aggressive dirtying
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 04:15:11 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1309905378.1950.50.camel@doink>
References: <20110701094321.936534538@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110701094603.789209280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1309905378.1950.50.camel@doink>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 05:36:18PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > A large part of the issue is that XFS writes data out itself two times
> > in the ->sync_fs method, overriding the lifelock protection in the core
> > writeback code, and another issue is the lock-less xfs_ioend_wait call,
> > which doesn't prevent new ioend from beeing queue up while waiting for
> > the count to reach zero.
> The change affects only the first thing you mention here, not
> the second.

It does.  We're also removing the xfs_ioend_wait done from
xfs_sync_data/xfs_sync_inode_data.  We still have another one in
->write_inode, though.

> The i_iocount wait is not affected by your patch.

We're only removing one of the two we're doing per inode now.

> I'm OK with the change, but really prefer to have
> the description not include stuff that just isn't
> there.  If you want me to commit this as-is, just
> say so and I will.  Otherwise, post an update and
> I'll use that.  In any case, you can consider this
> reviewed by me.

If you have an idea how to reword the description send it my way.

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