On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:35:56PM +0100, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote: > On Sunday 18 December 2011, 16:49:55 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > If the writeback code writes back an inode because it has expired we > > currently use the non-blockin ->write_inode path. This means any > > inode that is pinned is skipped. With delayed logging and a workload > > that has very little log traffic otherwise it is very likely that an > > inode that gets constantly written to is always pinned, and thus we > > keep refusing to write it. The VM writeback code at that point > > redirties it and doesn't try to write it again for another 30 > > seconds. This means under certain scenarious time based metadata > > writeback never happens. > > Wouldn't this qualify as STABLE material then? Yes, it does. But for something as complicated as XFS I'm not going to do a simple Cc: to stable but will apply each patch individually and do explicit testing of the backport. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
