On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 02:45:41PM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 12:31 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> > +
> > + if (wakeup_bdi) {
> > + spin_lock(&bdi->wb_lock);
> > + if (!bdi->wb.task)
> > + wake_up_process(default_backing_dev_info.wb.task);
> > + else
> > + wake_up_process(bdi->wb.task);
> > + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock);
> > + }
> > }
>
> Dave,
>
> I do not know whether this stuff will end up in upstream, I did not get
> any feed back from Jens so far. But if it will, I'd like to let you know
> that the code quoted above is similar to the 'bdi_queue_work()'
> function. And the purpose is very similar. But you added a
> 'trace_writeback_nothread()' call to 'bdi_queue_work()', and I think a
> similar call has to be here.
Yes, that seems like a sane thing to do ;)
> Can I call 'trace_writeback_nothread()'? I guess not. Should I create
> another trace point? Any hints/instructions?
The bdi_queue_work() tracepoints expect a work structure to be
passed in, so you can't use them (or that class of event) if you
don't have a struct wb_writeback_work.
For __mark_inode_dirty(), I'd add two new tracepoints like:
DEFINE_WRITEBACK_EVENT(writeback_wakeup);
DEFINE_WRITEBACK_EVENT(writeback_wakeup_nothread);
and place them as:
if (wakeup_bdi) {
trace_writeback_wakeup(bdi)
spin_lock(&bdi->wb_lock);
if (!bdi->wb.task) {{
trace_writeback_wakeup_nothread(bdi);
wake_up_process(default_backing_dev_info.wb.task);
} else
wake_up_process(bdi->wb.task);
spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock);
}
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
