Hi Hellwig,
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:27:32 +0800
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:59:43PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > + *
> > + * Sometimes when this get called, the host inode may be under data
> > + * syncing initiated by flush thread(especially for a large file),
> > and
> > + * in such situation, we should skip this path of writeback
> > */
> > static int journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space
> > *mapping) {
> > @@ -181,6 +185,13 @@ static int
> > journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space
> > *mapping) .range_end = i_size_read(mapping->host), };
> >
> > + spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> > + if (mapping->host->i_state & I_SYNC) {
> > + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> > +
>
> inode_lock is not exported to modules, and that's for a pretty good
> reason. I think you want to change this code at a higher level to not
> compete with the flusher threads at all.
>
Good point. The alternative I can think of is to use writeback_in_progress(),
thus the check will be changed to:
if (writeback_in_progress(mapping->backing_dev_info))
return 0;
This have the same effect as the original patch.
Thanks,
Feng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
