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 08:41:18 -0400
Message-ID: <20110804124118.GA6352@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>
 <20110804121916.GA17783@infradead.org>
 <20110804123722.GB20800@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]:46531
	"EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752568Ab1HDMlV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:41:21 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110804123722.GB20800@quack.suse.cz>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 02:37:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > from Dave - before that it was asynchronous and in weird context, so
> > it seems we defintively need it to be synchronous.
>   From the changelog it seems it needs to be synchronous in the sense that
> we don't offload flushing to a different thread as we used to. Also the
> reason why previously flushing didn't work was that we held page locks and
> IO lock but it's not the case in xfs_file_buffered_aio_write() anymore. So
> filemap_flush() still looks like an appropriate thing to me.
> 
> > 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.
>   OK, I'll leave it there then. I just wonder whether I should convert it
> to filemap_flush() or to filemap_write_and_wait()...

My preference would be to not touch it unless we have a good reason.