On Mon 14-11-11 07:05:46, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 07:59:12PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 07:10:28PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > these two patches aim at making task waiting in balance_dirty_pages() > > > killable. This is desirable because otherwise if filesystem stops accepting > > > writes (e.g. if device has been removed or other serious error condidion) we > > > have a task stuck in D state forever. > > > > Agreed totally. I myself has run into such conditions and get very > > annoyed not being able to kill the hard throttled tasks -- they just > > stuck there for ever if the error condition does not change. > > > > > I'm not sure who should merge these two patches... Al, Fengguang? > > > > I'd like to do it -- otherwise there will obviously be merge conflicts. > > > > Actually I also queued a patch to do this (attached). Your patches do > > better on TASK_KILLABLE and the use of signal_pending() in write > > routines, while mine goes further to add the break to various > > filesystems. How about combining them together? > > Can you make balance_dirty_pages(_ratelimited) return an error instead > of opencoding the fatal signal check everywhere? That would make the > interface a bit more obvious. We can do this. It's just that signal_pending() check e.g. in generic_perform_write() has a sense even when balance_dirty_pages() will be returning error because it also catches other cases... 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
