From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with SMTP id p3F85rxK053539 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:05:53 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 04:09:16 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: kick inode writeback when low on memory Message-ID: <20110415080915.GA10619@infradead.org> References: <1302157196-1988-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1302157196-1988-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1302726822.2023.128.camel@doink> <20110414050846.GJ21395@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110414050846.GJ21395@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Alex Elder On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 03:08:46PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Unfortunately, we simply can't take the s_umount lock in reclaim > context. So further hackery is going to be required here - I think > that writeback_inodes_sb_nr_if_idle() need to use trylocks. if the > s_umount lock is taken in write mode, then it's pretty certain that > the sb is busy.... http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/48373/focus=48628 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs