Re: [PATCH 00/18] writeback fixes and cleanups for 2.6.40 (v3)

Andrew Morton
2011-06-01T22:32:29Z

On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:28:59 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 05:28:38PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 05:07:39PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Wu, Andrew,
> > >
> > > what's the plan for these for 2.6.40? We'll need to make some progress
> > > in this area, and even if we can't get everything it we should make sure
> > > to at least include the updated versions of those in -mm. But even
> > > some of the later ones are pretty low risk.

I've been waiting for this work to stabilize a bit more.

> > Yes, except for patch 14 which does not include external behavior
> > changes besides the good full write chunk size for large files, the
> > patches not in -mm are pretty trivial ones.
> >
> > Aside from my simple tests, Alex also helped going through the LKP
> > tests with the patchset and find no writeback regressions.
>
> I'll rearrange the series and move patch 14 to the end, so that the
> patches come in order
>
> - 10 (updated) patches in -mm
> - 6 more trivial patches that is safe to go upstream after -rc1
> - the current patch 14 and patch 16 (that depends on 14)

I didn't merge the writeback patches for -rc1 due to uncertainty about
their readiness. Here's what I'm sitting on:

writeback-pass-writeback_control-down-to-move_expired_inodes.patch
writeback-introduce-writeback_controlinodes_cleaned.patch
writeback-try-more-writeback-as-long-as-something-was-written.patch
writeback-the-kupdate-expire-timestamp-should-be-a-moving-target.patch
writeback-sync-expired-inodes-first-in-background-writeback.patch
writeback-refill-b_io-iff-empty.patch
writeback-split-inode_wb_list_lock-into-bdi_writebacklist_lock.patch
writeback-elevate-queue_io-into-wb_writeback.patch
writeback-introduce-wbctagged_sync-for-the-wb_sync_none-sync-stage.patch
writeback-update-dirtied_when-for-synced-inode-to-prevent-livelock.patch
writeback-avoid-extra-sync-work-at-enqueue-time.patch

Are these all up-todate and considered ready to go?

I have a couple of notes I made:

#writeback-try-more-writeback-as-long-as-something-was-written.patch: sync livelocks

IOW, someone reported livelocks with sync, or speculated that it might
cause them.

#writeback-sync-expired-inodes-first-in-background-writeback.patch: TBU??

"to be updated".

I haven't gone back through the email trail to work out why I added
these notes and whether the identified issues were resolved.