On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 05:52:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Are we really ok with waiting synchronously for an inode while holding > > the plug? No chance of deadlock (waiting for IO that we've plugged)? > > That issue is true even of the current code, though, and I have _not_ > > really thought that through, it's just a worry. > > Never mind. We still flush the plug on explicit scheduling events. I > wonder why I thought we got rid of that. Some kind of "senior moment", But flushing on schedule is a little different. It ends up calling blk_schedule_flush_plug() which will hand off work to kblockd through blk_run_queue_async() Not a huge deal, but if we're scheduling to wait for that IO, we should really run the plug ourselves so that we're not waiting for kblockd too. -chris -- 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
