Jens Axboe wrote:
> Here's the 9th version of the writeback patches. Changes since v8:
>
> - Fix a bdi_work on-stack allocation hang. I hope this fixes Ted's
> issue.
> - Get rid of the explicit wait queues, we can just use wake_up_process()
> since it's just for that one task.
> - Add separate "sync_supers" thread that makes sure that the dirty
> super blocks get written. We cannot safely do this from bdi_forker_task(),
> as that risks deadlocking on ->s_umount. Artem, I implemented this
> by doing the wake ups from a timer so that it would be easier for you
> to just deactivate the timer when there are no super blocks.
I wonder if you would consider to work on top of the latest VFS changes:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git for-next
For me the problem is that my original patches were created against
the VFS tree, and they do not apply nicely to your tree. So what I've
tried to do - I applied your patches on top of the VFS tree. But they
did not apply cleanly either. I'm currently working on merging them,
but I thought it is better to ask if you already did this.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
On Wed, Jun 03 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Here's the 9th version of the writeback patches. Changes since v8:
>>
>> - Fix a bdi_work on-stack allocation hang. I hope this fixes Ted's
>> issue.
>> - Get rid of the explicit wait queues, we can just use wake_up_process()
>> since it's just for that one task.
>> - Add separate "sync_supers" thread that makes sure that the dirty
>> super blocks get written. We cannot safely do this from bdi_forker_task(),
>> as that risks deadlocking on ->s_umount. Artem, I implemented this
>> by doing the wake ups from a timer so that it would be easier for you
>> to just deactivate the timer when there are no super blocks.
>
> I wonder if you would consider to work on top of the latest VFS changes:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git for-next
>
> For me the problem is that my original patches were created against
> the VFS tree, and they do not apply nicely to your tree. So what I've
> tried to do - I applied your patches on top of the VFS tree. But they
> did not apply cleanly either. I'm currently working on merging them,
> but I thought it is better to ask if you already did this.
Al, what's the time frame for submitting these vfs changes? I'm assuming
2.6.31 since it's called for-next. If that is the case, then it would be
for the best if I rebase on top of those.
So, to answer your other ping mail as well, my writeback changes will
then be based on top off the vfs tree and then your 0-17 patches. Then
we should have a joint base to work from.
--
Jens Axboe