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 p74CfK9i069124 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 07:41:20 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id E6DD21EF482E for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:41:19 -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 hZnbG7fuDmSwZVfu for ; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:41:18 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Improve writeout pattern from xfs_flush_pages() Message-ID: <20110804124118.GA6352@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> <20110804121916.GA17783@infradead.org> <20110804123722.GB20800@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110804123722.GB20800@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 02:37:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > from Dave - before that it was asynchronous and in weird context, so > > it seems we defintively need it to be synchronous. > From the changelog it seems it needs to be synchronous in the sense that > we don't offload flushing to a different thread as we used to. Also the > reason why previously flushing didn't work was that we held page locks and > IO lock but it's not the case in xfs_file_buffered_aio_write() anymore. So > filemap_flush() still looks like an appropriate thing to me. > > > 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. > OK, I'll leave it there then. I just wonder whether I should convert it > to filemap_flush() or to filemap_write_and_wait()... My preference would be to not touch it unless we have a good reason. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs