From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs: fix congestion control From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <1169135375.6105.15.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <20070116054743.15358.77287.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <20070116135325.3441f62b.akpm@osdl.org> <1168985323.5975.53.camel@lappy> <1169070763.5975.70.camel@lappy> <1169070886.6523.8.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1169126868.6197.55.camel@twins> <1169135375.6105.15.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:33:54 +0100 Message-Id: <1169199234.6197.129.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Christoph Lameter , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 10:49 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > After the dirty page has been written to unstable storage, it marks the > inode using I_DIRTY_DATASYNC, which should then ensure that the VFS > calls write_inode() on the next pass through __sync_single_inode. > I'd rather like to see fs/fs-writeback.c do this correctly (assuming > that it is incorrect now). balance_dirty_pages() wbc.sync_mode = WB_SYNC_NONE; writeback_inodes() sync_sb_inodes() __writeback_single_inode() __sync_single_inode() write_inode() nfs_write_inode() Ah, yes, I see. That ought to work. /me goes verify he didn't mess it up himself... -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org