On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Wu Fengguang wrote: > [add CC to afs/cifs/ceph maintainers] > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:55:53AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:37:10AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:15:25AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > I'm looking at backporting some upstream changes to earlier kernels, > > > > and ran across something I don't quite understand... > > > > > > > > In nfs_commit_unstable_pages, we set the flags to FLUSH_SYNC. We then > > > > zero out the flags if wbc->nonblocking or wbc->for_background is set. > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we also clear it out if wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE ? > > > > WB_SYNC_NONE means "don't wait on anything", so shouldn't that include > > > > not waiting on the COMMIT to complete? > > > > > > I've been trying to figure out what the nonblocking flag is supposed > > > to mean for a while now. > > > > > > It basically disappeared in commit 0d99519efef15fd0cf84a849492c7b1deee1e4b7 > > > > > > "writeback: remove unused nonblocking and congestion checks" > > > > > > from Wu. What's left these days is a couple of places in local copies > > > of write_cache_pages (afs, cifs), and a couple of checks in random > > > writepages instances (afs, block_write_full_page, ceph, nfs, reiserfs, xfs) > > > and the use in nfs_write_inode. > > > > In principle all nonblocking checks in ->writepages should be removed. > > > > (My original patch does have chunks for afs/cifs that somehow get > > dropped in the process, and missed ceph because it's not upstream > > when I started patch..) I'll queue up a fix for Ceph's ->writepages in my tree. Thanks! sage > > > > > It's only actually set for memory > > > migration and pageout, that is VM writeback. > > > > > > To me it really doesn't make much sense, but maybe someone has a better > > > idea what it is for. > > > > Since migration and pageout still set nonblocking for ->writepage, we > > may keep them in the near future, until VM does not start IO on itself. > > > > > > + if (wbc->nonblocking || wbc->for_background || > > > > + wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) > > > > > > You could remove the nonblocking and for_background checks as > > > these impliy WB_SYNC_NONE. > > > > Agreed. > > > > Thanks, > > Fengguang > -- 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
