xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH block/for-linus] writeback: fix syncing of I_DIRTY_TIME inode

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-linus] writeback: fix syncing of I_DIRTY_TIME inodes
From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:32:42 -0400
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, axboe@xxxxxx, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kernel-team@xxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=IJ8Gv/nk2YP7OjRWVaIuKE7EDxrBmHzAidAwMkshjXk=; b=SoEgHLGE9QtCLs0VFpfGHClBtHVqGQu4C2imWzMCZajDEKcX7SWYTG3f2jznMTtkJq YiXkPG6Hkpj7b8XbxvRg881bQ24+C41YDOK2XdVZe+V/XCMlhITUbOGsd79tigcE3IvV WBc0QbPSQg8DtFLpASvac6kXRrnGTtsfZ/IBTE6Wdiixgsfy0UmjEQ5LAHmbN2Ml9EOx M/RB/cb5thDcZe/acN3P++03rpnBw7lgRNh8/uzNo5sU9S6vFyTShjzfoHy8vz3WYUFX W6LJ9DT6I5xie0seo0BBirQIN1xZ0CvBo0lNlLbhWxpmzyw2H0sjtjBWnXSD8sl5wmRL eedw==
In-reply-to: <20150824190847.GA4234@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20150821102053.GL17933@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150822003025.GS3902@dastard> <20150822044609.GM17933@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150824011123.GA714@dastard> <20150824031816.GO17933@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150824062425.GU3902@dastard> <20150824091959.GA2936@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150824145150.GA10029@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150824171144.GB27262@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150824190847.GA4234@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Hello, Jan.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:08:47PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Inode may contain writeback pages (but not dirty pages) without being on
> any of the dirty lists. That is correct. Josef Bacik had patches to create

Hmmm... Can you please expand on how / why that happens?  It's kinda
weird to require writeback to walk all inodes regardless of their
dirty states.

> a list to track inodes with pages under writeback but they clashed with
> your patch series and they didn't get rebased yet AFAIR.

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply put them on one of the existing
b_* lists?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

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