From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: Don't wait for completion in writeback_inodes_sb_nr Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:56:39 -0400 Message-ID: <20110719165639.GC11540@infradead.org> References: <20110711170042.GE5482@quack.suse.cz> <20110711194835.GI5482@quack.suse.cz> <20110711201157.GA21460@infradead.org> <20110712103453.GC31226@quack.suse.cz> <20110712104132.GA14189@infradead.org> <20110712223715.GC13656@quack.suse.cz> <20110714230854.GA29160@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Curt Wohlgemuth , Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com To: Jan Kara Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110714230854.GA29160@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:08:54AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Actually, it's the other way around writeback_inodes_sb() is superfluous > because of wakeup_flusher_threads(). So something like attached patch could > improve sync times (especially in presence of other IO). So far I have only > checked that sync times look reasonable with it but didn't really compare > them with original kernel... This changes the order in which ->quota_sync is called relatively to other operations, see my other mail about it. Also the code gets really confusing at this point, I think you're better of stopping to try to shared code between syncfs, umount & co and sys_sync with these bits. You're also skipping the ->sync_fs and quotasync calls the first round. I know for XFS sync_fs without wait is already mostly a no-op, but we'll need to benchmark and document this change, and apply it to the non-sync caller as well.