> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html