From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754874Ab2IQQzk (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:55:40 -0400 Received: from mail.parknet.co.jp ([210.171.160.6]:39702 "EHLO mail.parknet.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753521Ab2IQQzi (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:55:38 -0400 From: OGAWA Hirofumi To: Jan Kara Cc: Fengguang Wu , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@lst.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix queueing work if !bdi_cap_writeback_dirty() References: <20120914131952.GA4952@quack.suse.cz> <87ipbgn2gz.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20120914144543.GB4952@quack.suse.cz> <878vccmygy.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20120916214912.GA7503@quack.suse.cz> <87wqzt7drb.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20120917084853.GA9150@quack.suse.cz> <87627d6lae.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20120917095623.GB9150@quack.suse.cz> <87obl55405.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20120917155406.GC9150@quack.suse.cz> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 01:55:29 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20120917155406.GC9150@quack.suse.cz> (Jan Kara's message of "Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:54:06 +0200") Message-ID: <87d31k6132.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jan Kara writes: >> Duplicate flusher - many FSes has own task to flush. Odd behavior in >> the case of partition - agree, but I'm not sure why metadata is ok, and >> it is not odd behavior. > Well, because there is much more of data pages then there is metadata. So > when you do strange things (like refuse to write / reclaim) with metadata, > it usually ends up in the noise. But when you start doing similar things > with data pages, people will notice. Could you explain more. So, you are thinking we have to fix current behavior for metadata intensive applications? And what will people notice? >> Sorry, I'm not sure your point in latest comment. You are just saying FS >> must flush pages on writepages()? > Yes. > >> And if alternative plan is acceptable, maybe I will not have interest to >> this anymore. > Yes, the alternative plan looks better to me. But all in all I don't want > to stop you from your experiments :) I mostly just wanted to point out that > disabling flusher thread for a filesystem has a complex consequences which > IMHO bring more bad than good. OK, thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi