From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752365Ab1DUGhH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:37:07 -0400
Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:9581 "EHLO
	ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750704Ab1DUGhF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:37:05 -0400
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnEEAHTPr015LHHJgWdsb2JhbAClRhUBARYmJcYcDoVoBA
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:36:59 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
        Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
        Itaru Kitayama <kitayama@cl.bb4u.ne.jp>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background
 writeback
Message-ID: <20110421063659.GH1814@dastard>
References: <20110419073523.GF23985@dastard>
 <20110419095740.GC5257@quack.suse.cz>
 <20110419125616.GA20059@localhost>
 <20110420012120.GK23985@dastard>
 <20110420025321.GA14398@localhost>
 <20110421004547.GD1814@dastard>
 <20110421020617.GB12191@localhost>
 <20110421030152.GG1814@dastard>
 <20110421035954.GA15461@localhost>
 <20110421041010.GA18710@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110421041010.GA18710@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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