On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 07:24:56PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:00:11PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > We don't do any data writeback from XFS any more - the VFS is > > completely responsible for that, including for freeze. We can > > replace the remaining caller with the VFS level function that > > achieves the same thing, but without conflicting with current > > writeback work - writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle(). > > > > This means we can remove the flush_work and xfs_flush_inodes() - the > > VFS functionality completely replaces the internal flush queue for > > doing this writeback work in a separate context to avoid stack > > overruns.. > > Are the lock ordering issues with writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle sorted out > by now? IIRC it still needs to be switch to a trylock. It never gets called from unmount or freeze context, so I can't see how it would deadlock in these use cases. It's only when we call writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle() from a context that already holds s_umount that the locking it has matters - that's where btrfs and ext4 have been getting into trouble with this. > > - xfs_flush_inodes(ip); > > + writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle(VFS_I(ip)->i_sb, > > + WB_REASON_FS_FREE_SPACE); > > I'd prefer to still keep a wrapper for an ugly call like this if we can. OK, I'll add an inline function to do this. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
