From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l3NNHBfB022721 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:17:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:17:06 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: review: don't hold ilock when calling vn_iowait Message-ID: <20070423231706.GO32602149@melbourne.sgi.com> References: <20070422230303.GX32602149@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070423214338.GA17561@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070423214338.GA17561@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: David Chinner , xfs-dev , xfs-oss On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:03:03AM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > > > Regression introduced by recent freezing fixes - we should > > not hold the ilock while waiting for I/O completion. > > Looks good, and actually simplies the twisted maze the xfs_sync_inodes is > a little bit. And the missing IPOINTER_INSERT in the SYNC_CLOSE case > looks like an actual bugfix. I had to look closely at that IPOINTER_INSERT case with SYNC_CLOSE; it was actaully working properly because you'd always end up in the SYNC_CLOSE case having inserted a pointer earlier on in the flow of the function. It certainly wasn't obvious that it was doing the right thing, though. > Of course in the end I'd still like to see all pagecache-writeout to > be driven by sync_sb_inodes() instead of the fs code, but it'll probably > take a little longer until that is done. Agreed on both counts. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group