From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756005Ab0HCNWt (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:22:49 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:51089 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751255Ab0HCNWr (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:22:47 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,309,1278313200"; d="scan'208";a="592433939" Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 21:22:16 +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 2/5] writeback: stop periodic/background work on seeing sync works Message-ID: <20100803132216.GA31893@localhost> References: <20100729115142.102255590@intel.com> <20100729121423.332557547@intel.com> <20100729162027.GF12690@quack.suse.cz> <20100730040306.GA5694@localhost> <20100802205152.GL3278@quack.suse.cz> <20100803030125.GA12070@localhost> <20100803105520.GA3322@quack.suse.cz> <20100803123922.GC3322@quack.suse.cz> <20100803125924.GA31827@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100803125924.GA31827@localhost> 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 > > Fengguang, how about merging also the attached simple patch together with > > my fix? With these two patches, I'm not able to trigger any sync livelock > > while without one of them I hit them quite easily... > > This looks OK. However note that redirty_tail() can modify > dirtied_when unexpectedly. So the more we rely on wb_start, the more > possibility an inode is (wrongly) skipped by sync. I have a bunch of > patches to remove redirty_tail(). However they may not be good > candidates for 2.6.36.. It looks that setting wb_start at the beginning of writeback_inodes_wb() won't be easily affected by redirty_tail(). So Reviewed-by: Wu Fengguang Thanks, Fengguang