On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 20:28 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 01:48:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On the patch itself, not sure if it would have been enough. As soon as > > there is a single dirty inode on the list one would get caught in the > > same problem as before. > > That should not be a problem. Normally the few new dirty inodes will > be all cleaned in one go and there are no more dirty inodes left(at > least for a moment). Hmm, I guess the new 'break' should be moved > immediately after writeback_inodes()... > > > That is, if NFS_dirty+NFS_unstable+NFS_writeback > dirty_limit this > > break won't fix it. > > In fact this patch exactly targets at this condition. > When NFS* < dirty_limit, Chakri won't see the lockup at all. > The problem was, there are only two 'break's in the loop, and neither > one evaluates to true for his dd command. Yeah indeed, when put in the loop, after writeback_inodes() it makes sense. No idea what I was thinking, must be one of those days... :-/ _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
