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 ESMTP id p74AgD2k064497 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:42:14 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 357AC1BAF273 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 03:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id UFCxMBci7comTAkX for ; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 03:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 06:42:10 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Improve writeout pattern from xfs_flush_pages() Message-ID: <20110804104210.GA30823@infradead.org> References: <1312404545-15400-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20110803214206.GA20477@infradead.org> <20110804103616.GF17196@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110804103616.GF17196@quack.suse.cz> 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: Jan Kara Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:36:16PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > The first one actually is a synchronous writeout, just implemented in > > a rather odd way by doing the xfs_ioend_wait right after it, so your > > change is actively harmful for it. > Oh, right. BTW cannot be truncate livelocked on a busy file because of > that xfs_ioend_wait()? Not really. We requite the iolock for new writes to start, and truncate holds it exclusively. But I'm working on a series for 3.2 to remove xfs_ioend_wait and just rely on inode_dio_wait for direct I/O, so it will be gone soon. At this point I'll also have to switch to filemap_write_and_wait_range for this caller. > > The third one is opportunistic writeout if a file got truncated down on > > final release. filemap_flush probably is fine here, but there's no need > > for a range version. If you replace it with filemap_flush please also > > kill the useless wrapper while you're at it. > Do you mean xfs_flush_pages()? OK, I can do that. Yes, xfs_flush_pages should go - at least he async version and its abuse of the buffer flags. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs