On Thu 04-08-11 08:19:16, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 02:07:24PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hmm, BTW, shouldn't the call to xfs_flush_pages() in > > xfs_file_buffered_aio_write() be converted to an asynchronous one? I don't > > quite see a point in waiting for io completion... Generally, flushing of > > the inode there seems of limited usefulness to me since that inode could be > > just a tiny victim not holding much delayallocated blocks. > > This comes from commit > > xfs: make inode flush at ENOSPC synchronous > > from Dave - before that it was asynchronous and in weird context, so > it seems we defintively need it to be synchronous. From the changelog it seems it needs to be synchronous in the sense that we don't offload flushing to a different thread as we used to. Also the reason why previously flushing didn't work was that we held page locks and IO lock but it's not the case in xfs_file_buffered_aio_write() anymore. So filemap_flush() still looks like an appropriate thing to me. > I agree that just flushing this inode seems like a rather odd handling > for ENOSPC. It's even more odd as we already use the big hammer before > in when we git ENOSPC in ->write_begin. The only thing I can imagine is > that this is the last attempt to get anything freed. OK, I'll leave it there then. I just wonder whether I should convert it to filemap_flush() or to filemap_write_and_wait()... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
