xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Improve writeout pattern from xfs_flush_pages()

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Improve writeout pattern from xfs_flush_pages()
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:19:16 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110804120724.GA20800@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1312404545-15400-1-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <20110803214206.GA20477@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110804103616.GF17196@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110804104210.GA30823@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110804120724.GA20800@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 02:07:24PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>   Hmm, BTW, shouldn't the call to xfs_flush_pages() in
> xfs_file_buffered_aio_write() be converted to an asynchronous one? I don't
> quite see a point in waiting for io completion... Generally, flushing of
> the inode there seems of limited usefulness to me since that inode could be
> just a tiny victim not holding much delayallocated blocks.

This comes from commit

        xfs: make inode flush at ENOSPC synchronous

from Dave - before that it was asynchronous and in weird context, so
it seems we defintively need it to be synchronous.  I agree that just
flushing this inode seems like a rather odd handling for ENOSPC.  It's
even more odd as we already use the big hammer before in when we
git ENOSPC in ->write_begin.  The only thing I can imagine is that
this is the last attempt to get anything freed.

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