From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m25L0H1u001139 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:00:22 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 08:00:35 +1100 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: TAKE 977545 - xfsaild causing too many wakeups Message-ID: <20080305210035.GA155407@sgi.com> References: <20080222041525.37EA858C4C0F@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <47CF05E5.90409@sandeen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47CF05E5.90409@sandeen.net> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs-dev , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 02:43:17PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > David Chinner wrote: > > xfsaild causing too many wakeups > > > > Idle state is not being detected properly by the xfsaild push code. > > The current idle state is detected by an empty list which may never > > happen with mostly idle filesystem or one using lazy superblock > > counters. A single dirty item in the list that exists beyond the > > push target can result repeated looping attempting to push > > up to the target because it fails to check if the push target > > has been acheived or not. > > > > Fix by considering a dirty list with everything past the target > > as an idle state and set the timeout appropriately. > > Will this go to 2.6.25? Yes, it certainly should. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group