Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:34270 "EHLO mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935219AbdAEFIW (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2017 00:08:22 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f67.google.com with SMTP id b1so39434661pgc.1 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 21:08:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 15:08:10 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux NFS Mailing List , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "Neil Brown" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfs: no PG_private waiters remain, remove waker Message-ID: <20170105150810.0b82a9ec@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <0562F017-2963-41E0-BE5B-62A07EC444CD@primarydata.com> References: <20170103182234.30141-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <20170103182234.30141-2-npiggin@gmail.com> <0562F017-2963-41E0-BE5B-62A07EC444CD@primarydata.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:43:10 +0000 Trond Myklebust wrote: > Hi Nick, > > > On Jan 3, 2017, at 13:22, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > > > Since commit 4f52b6bb ("NFS: Don't call COMMIT in ->releasepage()"), > > no tasks wait on PagePrivate, so the wake introduced in commit 95905446 > > ("NFS: avoid deadlocks with loop-back mounted NFS filesystems.") can > > be removed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin > > --- > > fs/nfs/write.c | 2 -- > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c > > index b00d53d13d47..006068526542 100644 > > --- a/fs/nfs/write.c > > +++ b/fs/nfs/write.c > > @@ -728,8 +728,6 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct nfs_page *req) > > if (likely(head->wb_page && !PageSwapCache(head->wb_page))) { > > set_page_private(head->wb_page, 0); > > ClearPagePrivate(head->wb_page); > > - smp_mb__after_atomic(); > > - wake_up_page(head->wb_page, PG_private); > > clear_bit(PG_MAPPED, &head->wb_flags); > > } > > nfsi->nrequests--; > > -- > > 2.11.0 > > > > That looks fine to me. Do you want to push it through the linux-mm path or do you want me to take it? Hi Trond, Thanks. I don't see a problem with both patches going through your tree. I think the patches to add this stuff went through your tree as well. The removal of the export is really the only thing that makes patch 2 non-trivial, but considering it was added for NFS, I think it's safe to remove. Thanks, Nick