On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:18:17AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: >> >> @@ -1311,7 +1312,12 @@ void writeback_inodes_sb_nr(struct super_block *sb, >> >> >> >> WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount)); >> >> bdi_queue_work(sb->s_bdi, &work); >> >> - wait_for_completion(&done); >> >> + hangcheck = sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs; >> >> + if (hangcheck) >> > >> >The hangcheck variable looks redundant. >> >> if sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs is equal to ZERO, it means >> timeout -- no checking done. So I think wait_for_completion_timeout >> makes no sense this time. > >I mean, you can test sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs directly? >It's a one shot test anyway. /* * Zero means infinite timeout - no checking done: */ unsigned long __read_mostly sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs = CONFIG_DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT; The comment in kernel/hung_task.c says "Zero means infinite timeout - no cheking done". Maybe I can just test if this time alarm doesn't flood my logs. Do you have more suggestion. :-) Regards, Wanpeng Li > >> >> + while (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&done, HZ/2)) >> >> + ; >> >> + else >> >> + wait_for_completion(&done); >> >> } >> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(writeback_inodes_sb_nr); >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 1.7.9.5 -- 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
