puling the git now - I will try whatever you throw at me. On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:57:49PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> Don't we need to call ext4_should_writeback_data() before we drop the >> lock? It pokes at ->i_mode which needs ->i_mutex AFAICT. > > No, it should be fine. It's not like a file is going to change from > being a regular file to a directory or vice versa. :-) > > From a quick inspection it looks OK, but I haven't had the time to > look more closely to be 100% sure, and of course I haven't run it > through a battery of regression tests. For normal usage it should be > fine though. > > Aidar, if you'd be willing to try it with this patch applied, and with > the file system mounted data=writeback, and then let me know what the > latencytop reports, that would be useful. I'm fairly sure that fixing > llseek() probably won't make that much difference, since it will > probably spread things out to other places, but it would be good to > make the experiment. > > We will probably also need to use the uninitialized bit for protecting > data from showing up after a crash for extent-based files, and turning > on data=writeback is a good way to simulate that. (Sorry, no way > we're going to make a change like that this merge cycle, but that > might be something we could do for 2.6.38.) But I am curious to see > what are the next things that come up as being problematic after that. > > Thanks, > > - Ted > -- 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