From: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-block@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] writeback: wb_start_writeback() should use WB_SYNC_ALL for WB_REASON_SYNC
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:51:01 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56F1BE45.5040906@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56F1BBCC.8050004@fb.com>
On 03/22/2016 03:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/22/2016 03:34 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:55:16AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> If you call sync, the initial call to wakeup_flusher_threads() ends up
>>> calling wb_start_writeback() with reason=WB_REASON_SYNC, but
>>> wb_start_writeback() always uses WB_SYNC_NONE as the writeback mode.
>>> Ensure that we use WB_SYNC_ALL for a sync operation.
>>
>> This seems wrong to me. We want background write to happen as
>> quickly as possible and /not block/ when we first kick sync.
>
> It's not going to block. wakeup_flusher_threads() async queues writeback
> work through wb_start_writeback().
For block here, you mean the async work ending up doing
wait_on_page_writeback() because we're doing WB_SYNC_ALL instead of
WB_SYNC_NONE?
And if so:
>> The latter blocking passes of sync use WB_SYNC_ALL to ensure that we
>> block waiting for all remaining IO to be issued and waited on, but
>> the background writeback doesn't need to do this.
why not have it do that?
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-22 21:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-22 17:55 [PATCHSET][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 17:55 ` [PATCH 1/6] block: ensure we don't truncate top bits of the request command flags Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 18:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-22 19:01 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-25 2:08 ` Mike Christie
2016-03-25 4:18 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 17:55 ` [PATCH 2/6] writeback: wb_start_writeback() should use WB_SYNC_ALL for WB_REASON_SYNC Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 21:34 ` Dave Chinner
2016-03-22 21:40 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 21:51 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2016-03-22 22:04 ` Dave Chinner
2016-03-22 22:07 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 17:55 ` [PATCH 3/6] block: add ability to flag write back caching on a device Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 18:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-22 18:59 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 17:55 ` [PATCH 4/6] sd: inform block layer of write cache state Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 17:55 ` [PATCH 5/6] NVMe: " Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 17:55 ` [PATCH 6/6] writeback: throttle buffered writeback Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 20:12 ` Jeff Moyer
2016-03-22 20:19 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 20:27 ` Jeff Moyer
2016-03-22 21:30 ` Shaohua Li
2016-03-22 21:35 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 21:51 ` [PATCHSET][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Dave Chinner
2016-03-22 22:03 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-22 22:31 ` Dave Chinner
2016-03-22 22:57 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56F1BE45.5040906@fb.com \
--to=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox