Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:04:11 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
Cc: dgc@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent large file writeback starvation
Message-Id: <20060206170411.360f3a97.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060207003410.GS43335175@melbourne.sgi.com>
References: <20060206040027.GI43335175@melbourne.sgi.com>
	<20060205202733.48a02dbe.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20060206054815.GJ43335175@melbourne.sgi.com>
	<20060205222215.313f30a9.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20060206115500.GK43335175@melbourne.sgi.com>
	<20060206151435.731b786c.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20060207003410.GS43335175@melbourne.sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1171
Lines: 31

David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> > So to fix both these problems we need to be smarter about terminating the
> > wb_kupdate() loop.  Something like "loop until no expired inodes have been
> > written".
> > 
> > Wildly untested patch:
> 
> Wildly untested assertion - it won't fix my case for the same reason I'm seeing
> the current code not working - we abort higher up in writeback_inodes()
> on the age check.

You mean that we're in the state

a) big-dirty-expired inode is on s_dirty

b) small-dirty-not-expired inode is on s_io

sync_sb_inodes() sees the small-dirty-not-expired inode on s_io and gives up?


In which case, yes, perhaps leaving big-dirty-expired inode on s_io is the
right thing to do.  But should we be checking that it has expired before
deciding to do this?  We don't want to get in a situation where continuous
overwriting of a large file causes other files on that fs to never be
written out.
-
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/