On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:02:27AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > The code in writeback_single_inode() is relatively complex. The list > requeing logic makes sense only for flusher thread but not really for > sync_inode() or write_inode_now() callers. Also when we want to get > rid of inode references held by flusher thread, we will need a special > I_SYNC handling there. > > So separate part of writeback_single_inode() which does the real writeback work > into __writeback_single_inode(). Make writeback_single_inode() do only stuff > necessary for callers writing only one inode, and move the special list > handling into writeback_sb_inodes() and a helper function inode_wb_requeue(). > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > --- > fs/fs-writeback.c | 264 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > include/trace/events/writeback.h | 36 ++++- > 2 files changed, 174 insertions(+), 126 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c > + > + ret = __writeback_single_inode(inode, wb, wbc); > + > + spin_lock(&wb->list_lock); > + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > + if (inode->i_state & I_FREEING) > + goto out_unlock; > + if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) > + redirty_tail(inode, wb); > + else > + list_del_init(&inode->i_wb_list); It seems that the above redirty_tail() and hence I_FREEING check can be eliminated? writeback_single_inode() does not need to deal with wb list requeue now, but only need to care about dequeue. The patch looks fine otherwise. > +out_unlock: > inode_sync_complete(inode); > - trace_writeback_single_inode(inode, wbc, nr_to_write); > + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > + spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock); > + > return ret; > } > -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>