On Wed 24-11-10 12:03:43, Nick Piggin wrote: > > For the _nr variant that btrfs uses, it's worse for the filesystems > > that don't have a 1:1 bdi<->sb mapping. It might not actually write any > > of the pages from the SB that is out of space. > > That's true, but it might not write anything anyway (and after we > check whether writeout is in progress, the writeout thread could go > to sleep and not do anything anyway). > > So it's a pretty hacky interface anyway. If you want to do anything > deterministic, you obviously need real coupling between producer and > consumer. This should only be a performance tweak (or a workaround > hack in worst case). Yes, the current interface is a band aid for the problem and better interface is welcome. But it's not trivial to do better... > > > It makes no further guarantees, and anyway > > > the sb has to compete for normal writeback within this bdi. > > > > > > > > I think Christoph is right because filesystems should not really > > > know about how bdi writeback queueing works. But I don't know if it's > > > worth doing anything more complex for this functionality? > > > > I think we should make a writeback_inodes_sb_unlocked() that doesn't > > warn when the semaphore isn't held. That should be enough given where > > btrfs and ext4 are calling it from. > > It doesn't solve the bugs -- calling and waiting for writeback is > still broken because completion requires i_mutex and it is called > from under i_mutex. Well, as I wrote in my previous email, only ext4 has the problem with i_mutex and I personally view it as a bug. But ultimately it's Ted's call to decide. Honza -- 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
