On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 07:52:37PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 09:22:16PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > That's a reasonable robust option, however at the cost of keeping the > > > > writeback code in some ambiguous state ;) > > > What do you exactly mean by ambiguous state? > > > > I mean in Christoph's case, it will be calling requeue_io() and at the > > same time rely on your suggested unconditional sleep at the end of > > wb_writeback() loop to avoid busy loop. Or in other words, b_more_io > > will be holding both inodes that should be busy retried and the inodes > > to be opportunistically retried. However I admit it's not a big > > problem if we take b_more_io as general "to be retried ASAP". > > > > > I don't see anything ambiguous in waiting for a jiffie or so. Not > > > that I'd be completely happy about "just wait for a while and see if > > > things are better" but your solution does not seem ideal either... > > > > There are no big differences (that matter) in terms of "how much exact > > time to wait" in this XFS case. What make me prefer b_more_io_wait is > > that it looks a more general solution to replace the majority > > redirty_tail() calls to avoid modifying dirtied_when. > > FYI, we had a few more users hit this issue recently. I'm not sure why, > but we are seeing this fairly often now. I'd really like to get some > sort of fix for this in ASAP as it causes data loss for users. Jan, do you agree to push the b_more_io_wait patch into linux-next? If not, let's do a patch to do unconditional sleep at the end of the wb_writeback() loop? Thanks, Fengguang _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
