xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfs: do flush inodes from background inode reclaim

from [Mark Tinguely] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfs: do flush inodes from background inode reclaim
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:25:11 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120327164645.389070852@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20120327164400.967415009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120327164645.389070852@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0 
On 03/27/12 11:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

We already flush dirty inodes throug the AIL regularly, there is no reason
to have second thread compete with it and disturb the I/O pattern.  We still
do write inodes when doing a synchronous reclaim from the shrinker or during
unmount for now.

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

---



-        */
-       return 0;
+       xfs_iflock(ip);

  reclaim:
        xfs_ifunlock(ip);


Is this flush lock / flush unlock cycle needed?

Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: [PATCH 02/18 V2] xfs: pass shutdown method into xfs_trans_ail_delete_bulk, Mark Tinguely
Next by Date:  Re: BUG: task blocked on waiter in xfs_trans_dqlockedjoin(), Alex Elder
Previous by Thread:  Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfs: do flush inodes from background inode reclaim, Dave Chinner
Next by Thread:  Re: [PATCH 06/10] xfs: do not write the buffer from xfs_iflush, Dave Chinner
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]