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 1/3] xfs: Use delayed write for inodes rather than async
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 06:14:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100108111432.GA4685@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100108110524.GC8718@discord.disaster>
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:05:24PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> I don't think it really matters for the existing code as we do the
> xfs_flush_buftarg(SYNC_WAIT) in the loop below which will push out
> inodes flushed during reclaim.
True.
> Hmmm - given that xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI) can skip
> inodes, there probably should be a sync reclaim done in the flush
> loop to ensure we've caught them.
Indeed, the skipping behaviour is rather confusing and needs to be taken
care off.
> Yes - xfs_iflush_int() gets called only from xfs_iflush() and
> xfs_iflush_cluster() and both check first.
Ok.
> The delayed write flush can skip inodes, so we need to do a sync
> flush to guarantee that we reclaim all dirty inodes. The flush is done
> first so the sync flush doesn't block on the flush locks for too
> long for inodes that are already locked for delwri flushing.
> Perhaps a:
>
> xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI);
> XFS_bflush(mp->m_ddev_targp);
> xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_SYNC);
>
> sequence would be better here?
I guess that would be optimal. Maybe with a little comment explaining
why we do it.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-08 11:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ 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 [this message]
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
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-01-02 3:03 [RFC, PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback Dave Chinner
2010-01-02 3:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] XFS: Use delayed write for inodes rather than async Dave Chinner
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=20100108111432.GA4685@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.