Re: [PATCH 2/8] writeback: move dirty inodes from super_block tobacking_dev_info

From: Jens Axboe
Date: Sun Sep 06 2009 - 14:44:10 EST

On Fri, Sep 04 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 08:53:57AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > + if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL)
> > > + bdi_wait_on_work_clear(&work);
> > > }
> >
> > That doesn't work, you have to wait for on-stack work. So either we just
> > punt and not do anything for WB_SYNC_NONE if the allocation fails, or we
> > punt to stack and do the wait. Since it's a cleaning action and
> > allocation fails, falling back to the stack and waiting seems like the
> > most appropriate choice.
> True, the wait needs to be unconditional. Updated version below.

(did you forget that patch? it's not there).

> But now that I look at it, I wonder if we should even bother with it.
> bdi_start_writeback is only used in WC_SYNC_NONE mode in
> balance_dirty_pages. So if we really run so much out of memory that we
> can't allocate the bdi_work we might just throttle and wait for the
> flusher thread to do it's work. That would get rid of all the
> special cases for the on-stack bdi_work instances.

Dunno, it feels a lot saner to always block there and ensure that we get
the message across.

Jens Axboe

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at