From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753605Ab0G3FRv (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:17:51 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:62940 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752697Ab0G3FRu (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:17:50 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,284,1278313200"; d="scan'208";a="643171363" Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:17:46 +0800 From: Wu Fengguang To: Jan Kara Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Dave Chinner , Chris Mason , Nick Piggin , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , Christoph Hellwig , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , KOSAKI Motohiro , Andrea Arcangeli , Mel Gorman , Minchan Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] writeback: prevent sync livelock with the sync_after timestamp Message-ID: <20100730051746.GB8811@localhost> References: <20100729115142.102255590@intel.com> <20100729121423.471866750@intel.com> <20100729150241.GC12690@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100729150241.GC12690@quack.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:02:41PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > Hi Fengguang, > > On Thu 29-07-10 19:51:45, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > The start time in writeback_inodes_wb() is not very useful because it > > slips at each invocation time. Preferrably one _constant_ time shall be > > used at the beginning to cover the whole sync() work. > > > > The newly dirtied inodes are now guarded at the queue_io() time instead > > of the b_io walk time. This is more natural: non-empty b_io/b_more_io > > means "more work pending". > > > > The timestamp is now grabbed the sync work submission time, and may be > > further optimized to the initial sync() call time. > The patch seems to have some issues... > > > + if (wbc->for_sync) { > For example this is never set. You only set wb->for_sync. Ah right. > > + expire_interval = 1; > > + older_than_this = wbc->sync_after; > And sync_after is never set either??? Sorry I must lose some chunk when rebasing the patch .. > > - if (!(wbc->for_kupdate || wbc->for_background) || list_empty(&wb->b_io)) > > + if (list_empty(&wb->b_io)) > > queue_io(wb, wbc); > And what is the purpose of this? It looks as an unrelated change to me. Yes it's not tightly related. It may be simpler to do - if (!wbc->for_kupdate || list_empty(&wb->b_io)) + if (list_empty(&wb->b_io)) in the previous patch "writeback: sync expired inodes first in background writeback". Thanks, Fengguang