On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 08:53:32PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:33:08 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Here's a lightly tested patch that turns the check for the two flags
> > > into a check for WB_SYNC_NONE. It seems to do the right thing, but I
> > > don't have a clear testcase for it. Does this look reasonable?
> >
> > Yes, I don't see any problems.
> >
> > > ------------------[snip]------------------------
> > >
> > > NFS: don't use FLUSH_SYNC on WB_SYNC_NONE COMMIT calls
> > >
> > > WB_SYNC_NONE is supposed to mean "don't wait on anything". That should
> > > also include not waiting for COMMIT calls to complete.
> > >
> > > WB_SYNC_NONE is also implied when wbc->nonblocking or
> > > wbc->for_background are set, so we can replace those checks in
> > > nfs_commit_unstable_pages with a check for WB_SYNC_NONE.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/nfs/write.c | 10 +++++-----
> > > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c
> > > index 874972d..35bd7d0 100644
> > > --- a/fs/nfs/write.c
> > > +++ b/fs/nfs/write.c
> > > @@ -1436,12 +1436,12 @@ static int nfs_commit_unstable_pages(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_contr
> > > /* Don't commit yet if this is a non-blocking flush and there are
> > > * lots of outstanding writes for this mapping.
> > > */
> > > - if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> > > - nfsi->ncommit <= (nfsi->npages >> 1))
> > > - goto out_mark_dirty;
> > > -
> > > - if (wbc->nonblocking || wbc->for_background)
> > > + if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) {
> > > + if (nfsi->ncommit <= (nfsi->npages >> 1))
> > > + goto out_mark_dirty;
> > > flags = 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > nitpick: I'd slightly prefer an one-line change
> >
> > - if (wbc->nonblocking || wbc->for_background)
> > + if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE)
> > flags = 0;
> >
> > That way the patch will look more obvious and "git blame" friendly,
> > and the original "Don't commit.." comment will best match its code.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
>
> Either way. I figured it would be slightly more efficient to just check
> WB_SYNC_NONE once in that function. I suppose we could just fix up the
> comments instead. Let me know if I should respin the patch with updated
> comments...
OK, please do the comments.
> Thanks for the review...
You are welcome.
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>