On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 01:39:54AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 22-07-10 13:09:33, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > writeback_inodes_wb()/__writeback_inodes_sb() are not agressive in that
> > they only populate b_io when necessary at entrance time. When the queued
> > set of inodes are all synced, they just return, possibly with
> > wbc.nr_to_write > 0.
> >
> > For kupdate and background writeback, there may be more eligible inodes
> > sitting in b_dirty when the current set of b_io inodes are completed. So
> > it is necessary to try another round of writeback as long as we made some
> > progress in this round. When there are no more eligible inodes, no more
> > inodes will be enqueued in queue_io(), hence nothing could/will be
> > synced and we may safely bail.
> >
> > This will livelock sync when there are heavy dirtiers. However in that case
> > sync will already be livelocked w/o this patch, as the current livelock
> > avoidance code is virtually a no-op (for one thing, wb_time should be
> > set statically at sync start time and be used in move_expired_inodes()).
> > The sync livelock problem will be addressed in other patches.
> Hmm, any reason why you don't solve this problem by just removing the
> condition before queue_io()? It would also make the logic simpler - always
Yeah I'll remove queue_io() in the coming sync livelock patchset.
This patchset does the below. Though awkward, it avoids unnecessary
behavior changes for non-background cases.
- if (!wbc->for_kupdate || list_empty(&wb->b_io))
+ if (!(wbc->for_kupdate || wbc->for_background) || list_empty(&wb->b_io))
queue_io(wb, wbc);
> queue all inodes that are eligible for writeback...
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>