On Wed 08-11-17 14:00:59, Josef Bacik wrote:
> From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
>
> Now that we have metadata counters in the VM, we need to provide a way to kick
> writeback on dirty metadata. Introduce super_operations->write_metadata. This
> allows file systems to deal with writing back any dirty metadata we need based
> on the writeback needs of the system. Since there is no inode to key off of we
> need a list in the bdi for dirty super blocks to be added. From there we can
> find any dirty sb's on the bdi we are currently doing writeback on and call into
> their ->write_metadata callback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
This generally looks fine. Just two comments below.
> @@ -1654,11 +1679,38 @@ static long __writeback_inodes_wb(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
>
> /* refer to the same tests at the end of writeback_sb_inodes */
> if (wrote) {
> - if (time_is_before_jiffies(start_time + HZ / 10UL))
> - break;
> - if (work->nr_pages <= 0)
> + if (time_is_before_jiffies(start_time + HZ / 10UL) ||
> + work->nr_pages <= 0) {
> + done = true;
> break;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (!done && wb_stat(wb, WB_METADATA_DIRTY)) {
> + LIST_HEAD(list);
> +
> + spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
> + spin_lock(&wb->bdi->sb_list_lock);
> + list_splice_init(&wb->bdi->dirty_sb_list, &list);
> + while (!list_empty(&list)) {
> + struct super_block *sb;
> +
> + sb = list_first_entry(&list, struct super_block,
> + s_bdi_list);
> + list_move_tail(&sb->s_bdi_list,
> + &wb->bdi->dirty_sb_list);
It seems superblock never gets out of dirty list this way? Also this series
misses where a superblock is added to the dirty list which is confusing.
> + if (!sb->s_op->write_metadata)
> + continue;
> + if (!trylock_super(sb))
> + continue;
> + spin_unlock(&wb->bdi->sb_list_lock);
> + wrote += writeback_sb_metadata(sb, wb, work);
> + spin_lock(&wb->bdi->sb_list_lock);
> + up_read(&sb->s_umount);
> }
> + spin_unlock(&wb->bdi->sb_list_lock);
> + spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
> }
> /* Leave any unwritten inodes on b_io */
> return wrote;
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index 166c4ee0d0ed..c170a799d3aa 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type, int flags,
> spin_lock_init(&s->s_inode_list_lock);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&s->s_inodes_wb);
> spin_lock_init(&s->s_inode_wblist_lock);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&s->s_bdi_list);
>
> if (list_lru_init_memcg(&s->s_dentry_lru))
> goto fail;
> @@ -446,6 +447,9 @@ void generic_shutdown_super(struct super_block *sb)
> spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
> up_write(&sb->s_umount);
> if (sb->s_bdi != &noop_backing_dev_info) {
> + spin_lock(&sb->s_bdi->sb_list_lock);
> + list_del_init(&sb->s_bdi_list);
> + spin_unlock(&sb->s_bdi->sb_list_lock);
Verify that the superblock isn't in the dirty list here?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
