On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:41:27PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 15-11-11 19:48:44, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > +static int balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, > > > unsigned long pages_dirtied) > > > { > > > unsigned long nr_reclaimable; /* = file_dirty + unstable_nfs */ > > > @@ -1020,6 +1023,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, > > > unsigned long pos_ratio; > > > struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info; > > > unsigned long start_time = jiffies; > > > + int err = 0; > > > > > > for (;;) { > > > /* > > > @@ -1133,7 +1137,7 @@ pause: > > > pages_dirtied, > > > pause, > > > start_time); > > > - __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); > > > + __set_current_state(TASK_KILLABLE); > > > io_schedule_timeout(pause); > > > > > > dirty_thresh = hard_dirty_limit(dirty_thresh); > > > @@ -1145,6 +1149,11 @@ pause: > > > */ > > > if (nr_dirty < dirty_thresh) > > > break; > > > + > > > + if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) { > > > + err = -EINTR; > > > + break; > > > + } > > > } > > > > The other alternative is to raise the limit on fatal_signal_pending: > > > > if (fatal_signal_pending(current) && > > nr_dirty < dirty_thresh + dirty_thresh / 2) > > break; > > > > That should work well enough in practice and avoids touching the fs code. > Sorry, but I fail to see what would this bring us... Can you elaborate a > bit please? It's not bringing us something, but allows us to get rid of patch 2 as well as adding fatal_signal_pending() tests to all the other fs. So no more worries about partial writes :) Sure it leaves ->write_begin() blocks unhandled, however that should be much less a problem than the blocks inside balance_dirty_pages(). 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