Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:45:35 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        xfs@oss.sgi.com, axboe@fb.com, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-linus] writeback: fix syncing of I_DIRTY_TIME
 inodes
Message-ID: <20150824214535.GM28944@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20150822044609.GM17933@dhcp-13-216.nay.redhat.com>
 <20150824011123.GA714@dastard>
 <20150824031816.GO17933@dhcp-13-216.nay.redhat.com>
 <20150824062425.GU3902@dastard>
 <20150824091959.GA2936@quack.suse.cz>
 <20150824145150.GA10029@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20150824171144.GB27262@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20150824190847.GA4234@quack.suse.cz>
 <20150824193242.GE28944@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20150824210927.GA8823@quack.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150824210927.GA8823@quack.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1787
Lines: 44

Hello,

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:09:27PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> It is inefficient, yes. But note that 'writeback' and 'dirty' states are
> completely independent. Page can be in any of the !dirty & !writeback,

That isn't true for pages being dirtied through set_page_dirty().
It's guaranteed that a dirty inode remains on one of the b_* lists
till there's no dirty page and writeback is complete.

> dirty & !writeback, !dirty & writeback, dirty & writeback states. So mixing
> tracking of writeback and dirty state of an inode just makes the code even
> messier.

I'm curious where and why they would deviate.  Can you give me some
examples?  AFAICS, anything which uses the usual set_page_dirty() path
shouldn't do that.

> > > a list to track inodes with pages under writeback but they clashed with
> > > your patch series and they didn't get rebased yet AFAIR.
> > 
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to simply put them on one of the existing
> > b_* lists?
> 
> Logically it just doesn't make sense because as I wrote above dirty and
> writeback states are completely independent. Also you'd have to detect &
> skip inodes that don't really have any dirty pages to write and all the
> detection of "is there any data to write" would get more complicated. A
> separate list for inodes under writeback as Josef did is IMO the cleanest
> solution.

Given that the usual code path tracks dirty and writeback together, I
don't think it's nonsensical; however, I'm more curious how common
writeback w/o dirtying case is.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/