Re: [PATCH 0/7] writeback: avoid touching dirtied_when on blockedinodes

From: Wu Fengguang
Date: Fri Oct 21 2011 - 23:12:01 EST


> > btw, with the I_SYNC case converted, it's actually no longer necessary
> > to keep a standalone b_more_io_wait. It should still be better to keep
> > the list and the above error check for catching possible errors and
> > the flexibility of adding policies like "don't retry possible blocked
> > inodes in N seconds as long as there are other inodes to work with".
> >
> > The below diff only intends to show the _possibility_ to remove
> > b_more_io_wait:
> Good observation. So should we introduce b_more_io_wait in the end? We
> could always introduce it when the need for some more complicated policy
> comes...
>

I have no problem removing it if you liked it more. Anyway, let me
test the idea out first (just kicked off the tests).

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/