linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] writeback: introduce writeback_control.inodes_cleaned
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 19:14:29 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110516111429.GB5902@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110516104015.GA18520@infradead.org>

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 06:40:16PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 09:50:21AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > - nr_to_write has always been "# of pages written" and writeback_sb_inodes()
> > >   is actually making use of it to do page accounting in work->nr_pages.
> > 
> > Do we really care whether it's inodes or pages that are written? As
> > far as i can tell it doesn't, because writing inodes generally
> > requires more IO and so needs to be limited anyway.
> 
> We do care, but the current infrastructure already is bad enough to
> not make it work.  E.g. when calling from balance_dirty_pages we
> couldn't care less if the inode is written back, we just want pages
> on stable storage, similar for wakeups from the VM code.  Sooner or
> later there's no way around splitting page and inode writeback
> completely.

Agreed.

> > So put the accounting in the post-write code in
> > writeback_single_inode() where we already check if the inode is
> > still dirty or not.  Splitting per-inode post-write processing
> > between writeback_single_inode and the higher level code is cludgy -
> > I'd much prefer it done in only one place.
> 
> I'd tend to agree.  Especially as cleaner separation was the main
> goal for getting rid of the writeback_control overload in the beginning.

I wonder if this is what you want, which puts page and inode
accounting together:

                writeback_single_inode(inode, wb, &wbc);
               
                work->nr_pages -= write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
                wrote += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
+               if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY))
+                       wrote++;
+
                if (wbc.pages_skipped) {
                        /*
                         * writeback is not making progress due to locked
                         * buffers.  Skip this inode for now.
                         */
                        redirty_tail(inode, wb);
                }

Thanks,
Fengguang

  reply	other threads:[~2011-05-16 11:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-05-12 13:57 [PATCH 00/17] writeback fixes and cleanups for 2.6.40 (v2) Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 01/17] writeback: introduce .tagged_sync for the WB_SYNC_NONE sync stage Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 22:40   ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-13  2:56     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-13 10:17       ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-15 23:43       ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-16  5:39         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:17           ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 02/17] writeback: update dirtied_when for synced inode to prevent livelock Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 22:42   ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-13  3:08     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:31       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-23 13:14         ` Jan Kara
2011-05-24  3:03           ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 03/17] writeback: introduce writeback_control.inodes_cleaned Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 22:44   ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-13  3:36     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-15 23:50       ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-16 10:40         ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-16 11:14           ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 04/17] writeback: try more writeback as long as something was written Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 05/17] writeback: the kupdate expire timestamp should be a moving target Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 06/17] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background writeback Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 22:55   ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-16 13:00     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 07/17] writeback: refill b_io iff empty Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 08/17] writeback: split inode_wb_list_lock into bdi_writeback.list_lock Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 09/17] writeback: elevate queue_io() into wb_writeback() Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 10/17] writeback: avoid extra sync work at enqueue time Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 11/17] writeback: add bdi_dirty_limit() kernel-doc Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 12/17] writeback: skip balance_dirty_pages() for in-memory fs Wu Fengguang
2011-05-16 10:43   ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-16 10:49     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 13/17] writeback: remove writeback_control.more_io Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 14:25   ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12 23:04   ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-13  5:03     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-15 23:54       ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 14/17] writeback: make writeback_control.nr_to_write straight Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 14:56   ` Jan Kara
2011-05-12 23:18   ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-13  5:28     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-16  0:12       ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-16 12:05         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 15/17] writeback: remove .nonblocking and .encountered_congestion Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 16/17] writeback: trace event writeback_single_inode Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 23:20   ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-13  5:37     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-16  0:14       ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-16 12:21         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-12 13:57 ` [PATCH 17/17] writeback: trace event writeback_queue_io Wu Fengguang
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-05-06  3:08 [PATCH 00/17] writeback fixes and cleanups for 2.6.40 Wu Fengguang
2011-05-06  3:08 ` [PATCH 03/17] writeback: introduce writeback_control.inodes_cleaned Wu Fengguang
2011-05-06 14:36   ` Jan Kara
2011-05-10  2:23     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-10 13:52       ` Jan Kara
2011-05-10 15:00         ` Wu Fengguang

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=20110516111429.GB5902@localhost \
    --to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).