Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:47:20 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, jack@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bdi_sync_writeback should WB_SYNC_NONE first
Message-ID: <20090929204720.GE6723@think>
Mail-Followup-To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, jack@suse.cz
References: <20090925141014.GB15853@think>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090925141014.GB15853@think>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 954
Lines: 23

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:10:14AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> At unmount time, we do writeback in two stages.  First we call
> sync_filesystems with wait == 0, and then we call it with wait == 1.
> 
> When wait == 1, WB_SYNC_ALL is used.  WB_SYNC_ALL will pass wait == 1 to
> the filesystem write_inode function if the inode was I_DIRTY_SYNC, and
> the filesystem write_inode function is then expected to commit the
> running transaction.
> 
> The new bdi threads try to keep this two stage writeback, but the
> problem is that they do it by calling bdi_writeback_all, which just
> kicks a few procs here and there and returns.
> 

And I can't reproduce any problems with mainline today.  ENOTABUG.

-chris

--
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/