On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 07:16:47PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 07:11:30PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 07:05:00PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Same here - this has nothing to do with actual page writeback and really > > > should stay internal to fs/fs-writeback.c > > > > OK, I'll check how to constrain writeback_control to the minimal scope. > > The basic idea would be to pass the struct wb_writeback_work all the > way down to writeback_sb_inodes, and initialize the struct writeback_control > there. OK. > This requires adding a few more fields like more_io and We can in fact just kill more_io and test list_empty(b_more_io) instead. > older_than_this to struct wb_writeback_work, and redoing a lot of the > tracing, Yeah, older_than_this must still be set in wb_writeback(). The two trace points could be removed for now. > but it immediately clean things up, e.g. suddently > wbc.nr_to_write vs work->nr_pages starts to make sense, and instead > of saving and restoring pages_skipped in writeback_sb_inodes it can > always start with a clean zero value. That's right. 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
