On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:15:25AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:01:11AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > wbc->nonblocking is never set, so this whole code has been unreachable > > for a long time. I'm also not sure it would make a lot of sense - > > we'd rather finish our writeout after a short wait for the ilock > > instead of cancelling the whole ioend. > > I'd suggest that the only thing that should be dropped is the > wbc->nonblocking check. Numbers would be good to validate that this > is still relevant, but I don't have a storage subsystem with enough > bandwidth to drive a flusher thread to being CPU bound... I don't mind re-introducing this if we actuall have a testcase for it. Note that simply keeping the code won't work for the writepages implementation as we'd cancel the whole ioend if one lock fails, discarding potentially a lot of I/O. It's already bad enough with the simpler clustering we have in the current code. Back in SLES10 / 2.6.16 when the code could still be reached we only did it for the bmap calls directly from writepage, but not from the writeout clustering. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
