From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: linux-next: block tree build failure Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:31:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20090707143150.GF23611@kernel.dk> References: <20090707134908.e81b1556.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090707063846.GY23611@kernel.dk> <20090707135706.GB4997@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:39785 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756606AbZGGObw (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:31:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090707135706.GB4997@infradead.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Zhang, Yanmin" On Tue, Jul 07 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:38:46AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sync) > > > { > > > - wakeup_pdflush(0); > > > + wakeup_flusher_threads(0); > > > sync_filesystems(0); > > > sync_filesystems(1); > > > if (unlikely(laptop_mode)) > > > > That is correct! I have just now updated for-next as well, so your next > > pull should lose this fixup. > > It's not correct at all. We'll how have various flusher threads doing > async syncs, just to wait for them again synchronously. The right thing > to do here is to queue up the data integrity sync to per-bdi threads and > execute those in parallel. Sorry, I didn't judge the validity of the original patch, merely that the wakeup_pdflush() -> wakeup_flusher_threads() is the correct patch in the context of the per-bdi flushing. -- Jens Axboe