From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: reset inode dirty time when adding it back to empty s_dirty list Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:44:01 +0800 Message-ID: <20090328124401.GA12608@localhost> References: <20090325075110.028f0d1d@tleilax.poochiereds.net> <20090325121742.GA22869@localhost> <20090325091325.17c997fd@tleilax.poochiereds.net> <49CA2F41.8030804@themaw.net> <49CA33E7.6090309@themaw.net> <20090325100049.0cc4de87@tleilax.poochiereds.net> <20090325141618.GA5684@localhost> <20090326130327.3206e00b@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> <20090327021303.GA7547@localhost> <20090327071633.0c1a0e3a@tleilax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ian Kent , Dave Chinner , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org" , "hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090327071633.0c1a0e3a-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 07:16:33PM +0800, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:13:03 +0800 > Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > > > They also don't eliminate the problematic check above. Regardless of > > > whether your or Jens' patches make it in, I think we'll still need > > > something like the following (untested) patch. > > > > > > If this looks ok, I'll flesh out the comments some and "officially" post > > > it. Thoughts? > > > > It's good in itself. However with more_io_wait queue, the first two > > chunks will be eliminated. Mind I carry this patch with my patchset? > > > > It makes sense to roll that fix in with the stuff you're doing. > > If it's going to be a little while before your patches get taken into > mainline though, it might not hurt to go ahead and push my patch in as > an interim fix. It shouldn't change the behavior of the code in the > normal case of a short-lived dirtied_when value, and should guard > against major problems when there's a long-lived one. I'm afraid my patchset will miss the 2.6.30 merge window, so it makes sense to merge your patch first: > From: Jeff Layton > Subject: [PATCH] writeback: guard against jiffies wraparound on inode->dirtied_when checks Acked-by: Wu Fengguang Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html