From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q8368ett154254 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 01:08:40 -0500 Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id eBE96ieFCEain5Si for ; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 16:08:57 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant. Message-ID: <20120903060857.GB15292@dastard> References: <1346328017-2795-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1346328017-2795-8-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20120901232456.GB31634@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120901232456.GB31634@infradead.org> 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 Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 07:24:56PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:00:11PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > We don't do any data writeback from XFS any more - the VFS is > > completely responsible for that, including for freeze. We can > > replace the remaining caller with the VFS level function that > > achieves the same thing, but without conflicting with current > > writeback work - writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle(). > > > > This means we can remove the flush_work and xfs_flush_inodes() - the > > VFS functionality completely replaces the internal flush queue for > > doing this writeback work in a separate context to avoid stack > > overruns.. > > Are the lock ordering issues with writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle sorted out > by now? IIRC it still needs to be switch to a trylock. It never gets called from unmount or freeze context, so I can't see how it would deadlock in these use cases. It's only when we call writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle() from a context that already holds s_umount that the locking it has matters - that's where btrfs and ext4 have been getting into trouble with this. > > - xfs_flush_inodes(ip); > > + writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle(VFS_I(ip)->i_sb, > > + WB_REASON_FS_FREE_SPACE); > > I'd prefer to still keep a wrapper for an ugly call like this if we can. OK, I'll add an inline function to do this. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs