Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout

[Martin Bligh]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Martin Bligh<mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> BTW, can you explain this code at the bottom of generic_sync_sb_inodes
> for me?
>
>                if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
>                        wbc->more_io = 1;
>                        break;
>                }
>
> I don't understand why we are setting more_io here? AFAICS, more_io
> means there's more stuff to write ... I would think we'd set this if
> nr_to_write was > 0 ?
>
> Or just have the section below brought up above this
> break check and do:
>
> if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io) || !list_empty(&sb->s_io))
>        wbc->more_io = 1;
>
> Am I just misunderstanding the intent of more_io ?

I am thinking along the lines of:

@@ -638,13 +609,11 @@ sync_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb, s
                iput(inode);
                cond_resched();
                spin_lock(&inode_lock);
-               if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
-                       wbc->more_io = 1;
+               if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0)
                        break;
-               }
-               if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io))
-                       wbc->more_io = 1;
        }
+       if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io) || !list_empty(&sb->s_io)
+               wbc->more_io = 1;
        return;         /* Leave any unwritten inodes on s_io */
 }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/