From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p74CJMrd068291 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 07:19:23 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 9E1EB5322CD for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:19:18 -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 2eeXdiiNepHH2QhA for ; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:19:16 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Improve writeout pattern from xfs_flush_pages() Message-ID: <20110804121916.GA17783@infradead.org> References: <1312404545-15400-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20110803214206.GA20477@infradead.org> <20110804103616.GF17196@quack.suse.cz> <20110804104210.GA30823@infradead.org> <20110804120724.GA20800@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110804120724.GA20800@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 02:07:24PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Hmm, BTW, shouldn't the call to xfs_flush_pages() in > xfs_file_buffered_aio_write() be converted to an asynchronous one? I don't > quite see a point in waiting for io completion... Generally, flushing of > the inode there seems of limited usefulness to me since that inode could be > just a tiny victim not holding much delayallocated blocks. This comes from commit xfs: make inode flush at ENOSPC synchronous from Dave - before that it was asynchronous and in weird context, so it seems we defintively need it to be synchronous. I agree that just flushing this inode seems like a rather odd handling for ENOSPC. It's even more odd as we already use the big hammer before in when we git ENOSPC in ->write_begin. The only thing I can imagine is that this is the last attempt to get anything freed. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs