From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:14:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100108101437.GA19491@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100106224944.GW13802@discord.disaster>
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:49:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 01:08:00PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Btw, after this series XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI_ELSE_SYNC is also unused,
> > might be worth to throw something like the patch below in to clean
> > up xfs_iflush:
>
> Yes, makes sense. I'll add the patch to my QA series after updating
> it for the slight changes to the unmount reclaim I ahd in the
> second posting of the patch. Can I get a signoff from you for this?
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> > I'm also not sure we do enough of the noblock calls either with or
> > without your series. There seem to be a lot more non-blocking sync
> > calls than iflush calls.
>
> I don't quite follow - inode flushes from the bdi threads should be
> the majority of flushes (i.e. from xfs_fs_write_inode()) and they
> are non-blocking. the xfssyncd does delwri writeback (maybe that
> should be non-blocking and then we can get rid of that flag, too),
> so the only sync inode writeback path is from xfs_fs_write_inode()
> for sync flushing, as well as the unmount reclaim path....
Sorry, I mean non-blocking delwri calls above. xfs_sync_worker should
certainly be non-blocking as the whole daemon is operating that way. And
possibly xfs_sync_attr as well.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-08 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-05 0:04 [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2 Dave Chinner
2010-01-05 0:04 ` [PATCH 1/3] xfs: Use delayed write for inodes rather than async Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 10:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-08 11:05 ` Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 11:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-05 0:04 ` [PATCH 2/3] xfs: Don't issue buffer IO direct from AIL push Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 11:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-08 11:15 ` Dave Chinner
2010-01-05 0:04 ` [PATCH 3/3] xfs: Sort delayed write buffers before dispatch Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 11:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-08 11:17 ` Dave Chinner
2010-01-06 18:08 ` [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2 Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-06 22:49 ` Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 10:14 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100108101437.GA19491@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox