Re: [PATCH] fs-writeback: drop wb->list_lock during blk_finish_plug()

[Chris Mason]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 05:52:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Are we really ok with waiting synchronously for an inode while holding
> > the plug? No chance of deadlock (waiting for IO that we've plugged)?
> > That issue is true even of the current code, though, and I have _not_
> > really thought that through, it's just a worry.
> 
> Never mind. We still flush the plug on explicit scheduling events.  I
> wonder why I thought we got rid of that. Some kind of "senior moment",

But flushing on schedule is a little different.  It ends up calling
blk_schedule_flush_plug() which will hand off work to kblockd through
blk_run_queue_async()

Not a huge deal, but if we're scheduling to wait for that IO, we should
really run the plug ourselves so that we're not waiting for kblockd too.

-chris
--
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/