On 10/05/12 13:04, Ben Myers wrote:
Hey Mark,
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 12:55:45PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 10/05/12 12:18, Ben Myers wrote:
Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
===================================================================
--- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
+++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
@@ -198,7 +198,6 @@ typedef struct xfs_mount {
#endif
struct xfs_mru_cache *m_filestream; /* per-mount filestream data */
struct delayed_work m_reclaim_work; /* background inode reclaim */
- struct work_struct m_flush_work; /* background inode flush */
__int64_t m_update_flags; /* sb flags we need to update
on the next remount,rw */
struct shrinker m_inode_shrink; /* inode reclaim shrinker */
@@ -381,6 +380,27 @@ extern int xfs_dev_is_read_only(struct x
extern void xfs_set_low_space_thresholds(struct xfs_mount *);
+/*
+ * Flush all dirty data to disk. Must not be called while holding an XFS_ILOCK
+ * or a page lock.
+ *
+ * We have to hold the s_umount lock here, but because this call can nest
+ * inside i_mutex (the parent directory in the create case, held by the VFS),
+ * we have to use down_read_trylock() to avoid potential deadlocks. In
+ * practice, this trylock will succeed on almost every attempt as
+ * unmount/remount type operations are exceedingly rare.
+ */
+static inline void
+xfs_flush_inodes(struct xfs_mount *mp)
+{
+ struct super_block *sb = mp->m_super;
+
+ if (down_read_trylock(&sb->s_umount)) {
+ sync_inodes_sb(sb);
+ up_read(&sb->s_umount);
+ }
+}
+
Was this suppose to be in xfs_inode.h? Otherwise....
Christoph suggested that xfs_flush_inodes should take an xfs_mount instead of
an inode. It is operating on the super_block level to flush multiple inodes
rather than the single inode whose pointer was passed in, so I moved it from
xfs_inode.h to xfs_mount.h.
Regards,
Ben
You are right - that is where it belongs with the inode->mount parameter
change. Sorry for the noise.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
