From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pBKGifGR154605 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:44:41 -0600 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:45:07 -0600 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: mark the xfssyncd workqueue as non-reentrant Message-ID: <20111220164507.GQ29840@sgi.com> References: <20111205085321.GA10986@infradead.org> <20111219000227.GJ23662@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111219000227.GJ23662@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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:02:27AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 03:53:21AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On a system with lots of memory pressure that is stuck on synchronous inode > > reclaim the workqueue code will run one instance of the inode reclaim work > > item on every CPU. which is not what we want. Make sure to mark the > > xfssyncd workqueue as non-reentrant to make sure there only is one instace > > of each running globally. Also stop using special paramater for the > > workqueue; now that we guarantee each fs has only running one of each works > > at a time there is no need to artificially lower max_active and compensate > > for that by setting the WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE flag. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > Ok, I've had a look in detail at what the WQ_NON_REENTRANT flag does > and I agree that this is the correct behaviour for the xfssyncd - > only one instance per filesystem should run at any given time. > > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner FWICS this seems reasonable... Reviewed-by: Ben Myers _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs