From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A8506B01B4 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:44:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:43:50 +0200 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v4] Writeback livelock avoidance for data integrity writes Message-ID: <20100617074350.GA3453@quack.suse.cz> References: <1276706031-29421-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20100616221541.GV6590@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100616221541.GV6590@dastard> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dave Chinner Cc: Jan Kara , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , npiggin@suse.de List-ID: On Thu 17-06-10 08:15:41, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:33:49PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hello, > > > > here is the fourth version of the writeback livelock avoidance patches > > for data integrity writes. To quickly summarize the idea: we tag dirty > > pages at the beginning of write_cache_pages with a new TOWRITE tag and > > then write only tagged pages to avoid parallel writers to livelock us. > > See changelogs of the patches for more details. > > I have tested the patches with fsx and a test program I wrote which > > checks that if we crash after fsync, the data is indeed on disk. > > If there are no more concerns, can these patches get merged? > > Has it been run through xfstests? I'd suggest doing that at least > with XFS as there are several significant sync sanity tests for XFS > in the suite... I've run it through XFSQA with ext3 & ext4 before submitting. I'm running a test with xfs now. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- 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