From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Improve writeout pattern from xfs_flush_pages()
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:19:16 -0400
Message-ID: <20110804121916.GA17783@infradead.org>
References: <1312404545-15400-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
 <20110803214206.GA20477@infradead.org>
 <20110804103616.GF17196@quack.suse.cz>
 <20110804104210.GA30823@infradead.org>
 <20110804120724.GA20800@quack.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:60471
	"EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753368Ab1HDMTT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:19:19 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110804120724.GA20800@quack.suse.cz>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 02:07:24PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>   Hmm, BTW, shouldn't the call to xfs_flush_pages() in
> xfs_file_buffered_aio_write() be converted to an asynchronous one? I don't
> quite see a point in waiting for io completion... Generally, flushing of
> the inode there seems of limited usefulness to me since that inode could be
> just a tiny victim not holding much delayallocated blocks.

This comes from commit

	xfs: make inode flush at ENOSPC synchronous

from Dave - before that it was asynchronous and in weird context, so
it seems we defintively need it to be synchronous.  I agree that just
flushing this inode seems like a rather odd handling for ENOSPC.  It's
even more odd as we already use the big hammer before in when we
git ENOSPC in ->write_begin.  The only thing I can imagine is that
this is the last attempt to get anything freed.