xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 07/13] xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant.

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant.
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 19:24:56 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1346328017-2795-8-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1346328017-2795-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1346328017-2795-8-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:00:11PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> We don't do any data writeback from XFS any more - the VFS is
> completely responsible for that, including for freeze. We can
> replace the remaining caller with the VFS level function that
> achieves the same thing, but without conflicting with current
> writeback work - writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle().
> 
> This means we can remove the flush_work and xfs_flush_inodes() - the
> VFS functionality completely replaces the internal flush queue for
> doing this writeback work in a separate context to avoid stack
> overruns..

Are the lock ordering issues with writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle sorted out
by now?  IIRC it still needs to be switch to a trylock.

> -                     xfs_flush_inodes(ip);
> +                     writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle(VFS_I(ip)->i_sb,
> +                                                 WB_REASON_FS_FREE_SPACE);

I'd prefer to still keep a wrapper for an ugly call like this if we can.

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