Hi Jens,
now I've found just two minor things (see below). Besides them the only
thing which is blocking my ack is a way to effectively lookup a BDI from a
superblock so that we can reasonably effectively fsync a superblock...
Honza
On Fri 04-09-09 14:04:07, Jens Axboe wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> index 45ad4bb..c86492c 100644
> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +static long wb_check_old_data_flush(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> +{
> + unsigned long expired;
> + long nr_pages;
> +
> + expired = wb->last_old_flush +
> + msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10);
> + if (time_before(jiffies, expired))
> + return 0;
> +
> + nr_pages = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> + global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) +
> + (inodes_stat.nr_inodes - inodes_stat.nr_unused);
> +
> + return wb_writeback(wb, nr_pages, NULL, WB_SYNC_NONE, 1);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Retrieve work items and do the writeback they describe
> + */
> +long wb_do_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb, int force_wait)
> +{
> + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = wb->bdi;
> + struct bdi_work *work;
> + long nr_pages, wrote = 0;
> +
> + while ((work = get_next_work_item(bdi, wb)) != NULL) {
> + enum writeback_sync_modes sync_mode;
> +
> + nr_pages = work->nr_pages;
> +
> + /*
> + * Override sync mode, in case we must wait for completion
> + */
> + if (force_wait)
> + work->sync_mode = sync_mode = WB_SYNC_ALL;
> + else
> + sync_mode = work->sync_mode;
> +
> + /*
> + * If this isn't a data integrity operation, just notify
> + * that we have seen this work and we are now starting it.
> + */
> + if (sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE)
> + wb_clear_pending(wb, work);
> +
> + wrote += wb_writeback(wb, nr_pages, work->sb, sync_mode, 0);
> +
> + /*
> + * This is a data integrity writeback, so only do the
> + * notification when we have completed the work.
> + */
> + if (sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL)
> + wb_clear_pending(wb, work);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Check for periodic writeback, kupdated() style
> + */
> + if (!wrote)
> + wrote = wb_check_old_data_flush(wb);
Why is here the !wrote check? It would feel safer if we just did
wrote += wb_check_old_data_flush(wb);
Otherwise we cannot guarantee syncing of inodes every writeback_interval.
> +/*
> + * Schedule writeback for all backing devices. Expensive! If this is a data
> + * integrity operation, writeback will be complete when this returns. If
> + * we are simply called for WB_SYNC_NONE, then writeback will merely be
> + * scheduled to run.
> + */
> +static void bdi_writeback_all(struct writeback_control *wbc)
> +{
> + const bool must_wait = wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL;
> + struct backing_dev_info *bdi;
> + struct bdi_work *work;
> + LIST_HEAD(list);
> +
> +restart:
> + spin_lock(&bdi_lock);
>
> - filemap_fdatawait(mapping);
> + list_for_each_entry(bdi, &bdi_list, bdi_list) {
> + struct bdi_work *work;
> +
> + if (!bdi_has_dirty_io(bdi))
> + continue;
> +
> + /*
> + * If work allocation fails, do the writes inline. We drop
> + * the lock and restart the list writeout. This should be OK,
> + * since this happens rarely and because the writeout should
> + * eventually make more free memory available.
> + */
> + work = bdi_alloc_work(wbc);
> + if (!work) {
> + struct writeback_control __wbc = *wbc;
>
> - cond_resched();
> + /*
> + * Not a data integrity writeout, just continue
> + */
> + if (!must_wait)
> + continue;
>
> - spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&bdi_lock);
> + __wbc = *wbc;
You initialize the variable twice...
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
