Re: [PATCH block/for-linus] writeback: fix syncing of I_DIRTY_TIME inodes
From: Jan Kara
Date: Mon Aug 24 2015 - 17:09:39 EST
On Mon 24-08-15 15:32:42, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jan.
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:08:47PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Inode may contain writeback pages (but not dirty pages) without being on
> > any of the dirty lists. That is correct. Josef Bacik had patches to create
> Hmmm... Can you please expand on how / why that happens? It's kinda
> weird to require writeback to walk all inodes regardless of their
> dirty states.
It is inefficient, yes. But note that 'writeback' and 'dirty' states are
completely independent. Page can be in any of the !dirty & !writeback,
dirty & !writeback, !dirty & writeback, dirty & writeback states. So mixing
tracking of writeback and dirty state of an inode just makes the code even
> > a list to track inodes with pages under writeback but they clashed with
> > your patch series and they didn't get rebased yet AFAIR.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to simply put them on one of the existing
> b_* lists?
Logically it just doesn't make sense because as I wrote above dirty and
writeback states are completely independent. Also you'd have to detect &
skip inodes that don't really have any dirty pages to write and all the
detection of "is there any data to write" would get more complicated. A
separate list for inodes under writeback as Josef did is IMO the cleanest
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
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/