Re: [PATCH 3/6] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background writeback

Dave Chinner
2011-04-21T06:37:07Z

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:10:11PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > Still, given wb_writeback() is the only caller of both
> > > __writeback_inodes_sb and writeback_inodes_wb(), I'm wondering if
> > > moving the queue_io calls up into wb_writeback() would clean up this
> > > logic somewhat. I think Jan mentioned doing something like this as
> > > well elsewhere in the thread...
> >
> > Unfortunately they call queue_io() inside the lock..
>
> OK, let's try moving up the lock too. Do you like this change? :)

Yes, very much ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com