From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] writeback: stop periodic/background work on seeing sync works Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 21:22:16 +0800 Message-ID: <20100803132216.GA31893@localhost> References: <20100729115142.102255590@intel.com> <20100729121423.332557547@intel.com> <20100729162027.GF12690@quack.suse.cz> <20100730040306.GA5694@localhost> <20100802205152.GL3278@quack.suse.cz> <20100803030125.GA12070@localhost> <20100803105520.GA3322@quack.suse.cz> <20100803123922.GC3322@quack.suse.cz> <20100803125924.GA31827@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Dave Chinner , Chris Mason , Nick Piggin , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , Christoph Hellwig , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , KOSAKI Motohiro , Andrea Arcangeli , Mel Gorman , Minchan Kim To: Jan Kara Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100803125924.GA31827@localhost> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > > Fengguang, how about merging also the attached simple patch together with > > my fix? With these two patches, I'm not able to trigger any sync livelock > > while without one of them I hit them quite easily... > > This looks OK. However note that redirty_tail() can modify > dirtied_when unexpectedly. So the more we rely on wb_start, the more > possibility an inode is (wrongly) skipped by sync. I have a bunch of > patches to remove redirty_tail(). However they may not be good > candidates for 2.6.36.. It looks that setting wb_start at the beginning of writeback_inodes_wb() won't be easily affected by redirty_tail(). So Reviewed-by: Wu Fengguang Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org