From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] writeback: avoid touching dirtied_when on blocked inodes
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:11:35 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111022031135.GA4823@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111021195448.GA10166@quack.suse.cz>
> > btw, with the I_SYNC case converted, it's actually no longer necessary
> > to keep a standalone b_more_io_wait. It should still be better to keep
> > the list and the above error check for catching possible errors and
> > the flexibility of adding policies like "don't retry possible blocked
> > inodes in N seconds as long as there are other inodes to work with".
> >
> > The below diff only intends to show the _possibility_ to remove
> > b_more_io_wait:
> Good observation. So should we introduce b_more_io_wait in the end? We
> could always introduce it when the need for some more complicated policy
> comes...
>
I have no problem removing it if you liked it more. Anyway, let me
test the idea out first (just kicked off the tests).
Thanks,
Fengguang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-22 3:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-20 15:22 [PATCH 0/7] writeback: avoid touching dirtied_when on blocked inodes Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 1/7] writeback: introduce queue b_more_io_wait Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 23:23 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 2/7] writeback: avoid redirtying when ->write_inode failed to clear I_DIRTY Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 23:24 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 3/7] writeback: update wb->last_active on written pages/inodes Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 4/7] writeback: Retry kupdate work early if we need to retry some inode writeback Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 5/7] writeback: requeue_io_wait() on pages_skipped inode Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 23:25 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 6/7] writeback: requeue_io_wait() on blocked inode Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 23:31 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 7/7] writeback: requeue_io_wait() when failed to grab superblock Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 23:25 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 23:21 ` [PATCH 0/7] writeback: avoid touching dirtied_when on blocked inodes Jan Kara
2011-10-21 10:40 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-21 19:54 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-22 3:11 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2011-10-22 5:38 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-22 6:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-22 7:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-22 7:46 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-22 4:46 ` 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=20111022031135.GA4823@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 \
/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).