Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753906Ab3GBQNp (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:13:45 -0400 Received: from mail-ve0-f174.google.com ([209.85.128.174]:57586 "EHLO mail-ve0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752056Ab3GBQNo (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:13:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130702140508.GB31770@quack.suse.cz> References: <20130627125218.GB32195@dastard> <20130627152151.GA11551@redhat.com> <20130628011301.GC32195@dastard> <20130628035825.GC29338@dastard> <20130628102819.GA4725@quack.suse.cz> <20130629033924.GK32195@dastard> <20130701120037.GA6196@quack.suse.cz> <20130702062954.GA14996@dastard> <20130702081937.GA31770@quack.suse.cz> <20130702123835.GF14996@dastard> <20130702140508.GB31770@quack.suse.cz> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:13:43 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fhlyRrjGV9mLQsRV9mu6j-gsTXI Message-ID: Subject: Re: frequent softlockups with 3.10rc6. From: Linus Torvalds To: Jan Kara Cc: Dave Chinner , Dave Jones , Oleg Nesterov , "Paul E. McKenney" , Linux Kernel , "Eric W. Biederman" , Andrey Vagin , Steven Rostedt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1321 Lines: 31 On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 02-07-13 22:38:35, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >> IOWs, sync is 7-8x faster on a busy filesystem and does not have an >> adverse impact on ongoing async data write operations. > The patch looks good. You can add: > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara Ok, I'm going to take this patch asap. Should we also mark it for stable? It doesn't look like a regression in that particular code, but it sounds like it might be a regression when paired with the way the flusher threads interact. Or is this really some long-time performance problem? I'm also wondering if we should just change all callers - remove that "wait for writeback to complete" from writeback_one_inode() completely, and just make sure that *all* callers that use WB_SYNC_ALL do the "wait for writeback" in a separate stage, the way "sync()" already does? That whole if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL && !wbc->for_sync) { test doesn't really look all that sane (..so thanks Dave for adding a comment above it) Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/