Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:38609 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751332Ab0HTJTJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:19:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:19:04 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Wu Fengguang Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Mason , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: why are WB_SYNC_NONE COMMITs being done with FLUSH_SYNC set ? Message-ID: <20100820091904.GB20138@infradead.org> References: <20100819101525.076831ad@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> <20100819143710.GA4752@infradead.org> <20100819235553.GB22747@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20100819235553.GB22747@localhost> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:55:53AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > Since migration and pageout still set nonblocking for ->writepage, we > may keep them in the near future, until VM does not start IO on itself. Why does pageout() and memory migration need to be even more non-blocking than the already non-blockig WB_SYNC_NONE writeout?