On Wed 09-09-09 22:51:43, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> This was not a bug, since b_io is empty for kupdate writeback.
> The next patch will do requeue_io() for non-kupdate writeback,
> so let's fix it.
But doesn't this patch also need your "anti-starvation" patch?
Looking into the code, we put inode to b_more_io when nr_to_write
drops to zero and this way we'd just start writing it again
in the next round...
Honza
>
> CC: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Martin Bligh <mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Michael Rubin <mrubin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2009-09-09 21:41:14.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux/fs/fs-writeback.c 2009-09-09 21:45:15.000000000 +0800
> @@ -313,11 +313,14 @@ static void move_expired_inodes(struct l
> }
>
> /*
> - * Queue all expired dirty inodes for io, eldest first.
> + * Queue all expired dirty inodes for io, eldest first:
> + * (newly dirtied) => b_dirty inodes
> + * => b_more_io inodes
> + * => remaining inodes in b_io => (dequeue for sync)
> */
> static void queue_io(struct bdi_writeback *wb, unsigned long *older_than_this)
> {
> - list_splice_init(&wb->b_more_io, wb->b_io.prev);
> + list_splice_init(&wb->b_more_io, &wb->b_io);
> move_expired_inodes(&wb->b_dirty, &wb->b_io, older_than_this);
> }
>
>
> --
>
--
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
