From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:14:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100108101437.GA19491@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100106224944.GW13802@discord.disaster>
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:49:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 01:08:00PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 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:
>
> 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?
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> > I'm also not sure we do enough of the noblock calls either with or
> > without your series. There seem to be a lot more non-blocking sync
> > calls than iflush calls.
>
> I don't quite follow - inode flushes from the bdi threads should be
> the majority of flushes (i.e. from xfs_fs_write_inode()) and they
> are non-blocking. the xfssyncd does delwri writeback (maybe that
> should be non-blocking and then we can get rid of that flag, too),
> so the only sync inode writeback path is from xfs_fs_write_inode()
> for sync flushing, as well as the unmount reclaim path....
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 xfs_sync_attr as well.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-08 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-05 0:04 [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2 Dave Chinner
2010-01-05 0:04 ` [PATCH 1/3] xfs: Use delayed write for inodes rather than async Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 10:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-08 11:05 ` Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 11:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-05 0:04 ` [PATCH 2/3] xfs: Don't issue buffer IO direct from AIL push Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 11:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-08 11:15 ` Dave Chinner
2010-01-05 0:04 ` [PATCH 3/3] xfs: Sort delayed write buffers before dispatch Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 11:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-08 11:17 ` Dave Chinner
2010-01-06 18:08 ` [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2 Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-06 22:49 ` Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 10:14 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100108101437.GA19491@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.