[PATCH 1/3] xfs: Use delayed write for inodes rather than async

[Christoph Hellwig]

> +++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c
> @@ -460,8 +460,8 @@ xfs_quiesce_fs(
>  {
>  	int	count = 0, pincount;
>  
> +	xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI);
>  	xfs_flush_buftarg(mp->m_ddev_targp, 0);
> -	xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI_ELSE_ASYNC);

Hmm.  I think the current code here is simply wrong.  We do need to
flush all delwri buffers after the inode reclaim.  Maybe we should
get this hunk in for .33?

> -		xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI_ELSE_ASYNC);
> +		xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI);
>  		/* dgc: errors ignored here */
>  		error = xfs_qm_sync(mp, SYNC_TRYLOCK);
>  		error = xfs_sync_fsdata(mp, SYNC_TRYLOCK);
> @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ xfs_reclaim_inode(
>  		spin_unlock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
>  		write_unlock(&pag->pag_ici_lock);
>  		xfs_perag_put(pag);
> -		return -EAGAIN;
> +		return EAGAIN;

Unrelated bug in the upsteam code.  But your inode direct reclaim
changes should sort this out already.

> @@ -3012,16 +3001,6 @@ xfs_iflush_int(
>  	iip = ip->i_itemp;
>  	mp = ip->i_mount;
>  
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * If the inode isn't dirty, then just release the inode
> -	 * flush lock and do nothing.
> -	 */
> -	if (xfs_inode_clean(ip)) {
> -		xfs_ifunlock(ip);
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> -

while we now have this check in xfs_reclaim_inode there still are
various other callers.  Did you audit them all to make sure we don't
need the check here anymore?

> index 223d9c3..16c4654 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> @@ -1444,7 +1444,14 @@ xfs_unmountfs(
>  	 * need to force the log first.
>  	 */
>  	xfs_log_force(mp, (xfs_lsn_t)0, XFS_LOG_FORCE | XFS_LOG_SYNC);
> -	xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_ASYNC);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * flush the delwri buffers before the reclaim so that it doesn't
> +	 * block for a long time waiting to reclaim inodes that are already
> +	 * in the delwri state.
> +	 */
> +	XFS_bflush(mp->m_ddev_targp);
> +	xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_SYNC);

Wouldn't it be more efficient to also write them out delwri and then
flush out the delwri queue again?

Either way the current code seems fishy to me with an async writeout
here.