On Mon 24-08-15 15:32:42, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Jan. > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:08:47PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Inode may contain writeback pages (but not dirty pages) without being on > > any of the dirty lists. That is correct. Josef Bacik had patches to create > > Hmmm... Can you please expand on how / why that happens? It's kinda > weird to require writeback to walk all inodes regardless of their > dirty states. It is inefficient, yes. But note that 'writeback' and 'dirty' states are completely independent. Page can be in any of the !dirty & !writeback, dirty & !writeback, !dirty & writeback, dirty & writeback states. So mixing tracking of writeback and dirty state of an inode just makes the code even messier. > > a list to track inodes with pages under writeback but they clashed with > > your patch series and they didn't get rebased yet AFAIR. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to simply put them on one of the existing > b_* lists? Logically it just doesn't make sense because as I wrote above dirty and writeback states are completely independent. Also you'd have to detect & skip inodes that don't really have any dirty pages to write and all the detection of "is there any data to write" would get more complicated. A separate list for inodes under writeback as Josef did is IMO the cleanest solution. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> 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
