Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+0\/3\]\s+Kill\s+async\s+inode\s+writeback\s+V2\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+0\/3\]\s+Kill\s+async\s+inode\s+writeback\s+V2\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2 (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:04:18 +1100; Currently we do background inode writeback on demand from many different places - xfssyncd, xfsbufd, xfsaild and the bdi writeback threads. The result is that inodes can be pushed at any time and the; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00045.html (8,905 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2 (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:08:00 -0500; Btw, after this series XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI_ELSE_SYNC is also unused, might be worth to throw something like the patch below in to clean up xfs_iflush: I'm also not sure we do enough of the noblock call; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00075.html (15,542 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2 (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:49:44 +1100; Yes, makes sense. I'll add the patch to my QA series after updating it for the slight changes to the unmount reclaim I ahd in the second posting of the patch. Can I get a signoff from you for this? I; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00080.html (8,988 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2 (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:14:37 -0500; Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Sorry, I mean non-blocking delwri calls above. xfs_sync_worker should certainly be non-blocking as the whole daemon is operating that way. And possibly x; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00088.html (10,589 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]