From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475E76B00BA for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n6U1CT82027480 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:12:30 +0100 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wff29.prod.google.com [10.142.6.29]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n6U1CQn8013583 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:12:26 -0700 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so352284wff.32 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:12:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090730010630.GA7326@localhost> References: <1786ab030907281211x6e432ba6ha6afe9de73f24e0c@mail.gmail.com> <33307c790907281449k5e8d4f6cib2c93848f5ec2661@mail.gmail.com> <33307c790907290015m1e6b5666x9c0014cdaf5ed08@mail.gmail.com> <20090729114322.GA9335@localhost> <33307c790907290711s320607b0i79c939104d4c2d61@mail.gmail.com> <20090730010630.GA7326@localhost> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:12:26 -0700 Message-ID: <33307c790907291812j40146a96tc2e9c5e097a33615@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout From: Martin Bligh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Wu Fengguang Cc: Chad Talbott , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Michael Rubin , Andrew Morton , "sandeen@redhat.com" , Michael Davidson List-ID: > I agree on the unification of kupdate and sync paths. In fact I had a > patch for doing this. And I'd recommend to do it in two patches: > one to fix the congestion case, another to do the code unification. > > The sync path don't care whether requeue_io() or redirty_tail() is > used, because they disregard the time stamps totally - only order of > inodes matters (ie. starvation), which is same for requeue_io()/redirty_tail(). But, as I understand it, both paths share the same lists, so we still have to be consistent? Also, you set flags like more_io higher up in sync_sb_inodes() based on whether there's anything in s_more_io queue, so it still seems to have some effect to me? -- 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