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 1/3] xfs: Use delayed write for inodes rather than async
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 06:14:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100108111432.GA4685@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100108110524.GC8718@discord.disaster>
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:05:24PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> I don't think it really matters for the existing code as we do the
> xfs_flush_buftarg(SYNC_WAIT) in the loop below which will push out
> inodes flushed during reclaim.
True.
> Hmmm - given that xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI) can skip
> inodes, there probably should be a sync reclaim done in the flush
> loop to ensure we've caught them.
Indeed, the skipping behaviour is rather confusing and needs to be taken
care off.
> Yes - xfs_iflush_int() gets called only from xfs_iflush() and
> xfs_iflush_cluster() and both check first.
Ok.
> The delayed write flush can skip inodes, so we need to do a sync
> flush to guarantee that we reclaim all dirty inodes. The flush is done
> first so the sync flush doesn't block on the flush locks for too
> long for inodes that are already locked for delwri flushing.
> Perhaps a:
>
> xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI);
> XFS_bflush(mp->m_ddev_targp);
> xfs_reclaim_inodes(mp, XFS_IFLUSH_SYNC);
>
> sequence would be better here?
I guess that would be optimal. Maybe with a little comment explaining
why we do it.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-08 11:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ 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 [this message]
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
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-01-02 3:03 [RFC, PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback Dave Chinner
2010-01-02 3:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] XFS: Use delayed write for inodes rather than async Dave Chinner
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=20100108111432.GA4685@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