From: Hisashi Hifumi Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: set try_to_release_page's gfp_mask to 0 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:06:09 +0900 Message-ID: <6.0.0.20.2.20081016120032.046ec3a0@172.19.0.2> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080813111835.03d345b0@172.19.0.2> <20080812202127.b88e8250.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <6.0.0.20.2.20080813150454.03b13e30@172.19.0.2> <20081015153641.afcc94e5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <6.0.0.20.2.20081016112735.04a68e70@172.19.0.2> <20081015195458.cc203dd5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp ([222.151.198.100]:41467 "EHLO serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752046AbYJPDJK (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:09:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081015195458.cc203dd5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080813111835.03d345b0@172.19.0.2> <20080812202127.b88e8250.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <6.0.0.20.2.20080813150454.03b13e30@172.19.0.2> <20081015153641.afcc94e5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <6.0.0.20.2.20081016112735.04a68e70@172.19.0.2> <20081015195458.cc203dd5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: At 11:54 08/10/16, Andrew Morton wrote: >On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:44:39 +0900 Hisashi Hifumi > wrote: > >> >> Unfortunately, I did not succeed to get good performance number that >> prove this patch had some benefit. > >OK, thanks, I dropped it. > >> >This patch remains in a stalled state... >> > >> >And then there's this: >> > >> >> >: >> >: Really, I think what this patch tells us is that 3f31fddf ("jbd: fix >> >: race between free buffer and commit transaction") was an unpleasant >> >: hack which had undesirable and unexpected side-effects. I think - that >> >: depends upon your as-yet-undisclosed testing results? >> >: >> >: Perhaps we should revert 3f31fddf and have another think about how to >> >: fix the direct-io -EIO problem. One option would be to hold our noses >> >: and add a new gfp_t flag for this specific purpose? >> >: >> >> direct-io -EIO problem was already fixed by following patch. >> >> commit 6ccfa806a9cfbbf1cd43d5b6aa47ef2c0eb518fd >> Author: Hisashi Hifumi >> Date: Tue Sep 2 14:35:40 2008 -0700 >> >> VFS: fix dio write returning EIO when try_to_release_page fails >> >> Dio falls back to buffered write when dio write gets EIO due to failure >of try_to_release_page >> by above patch. So I think just reverting the patch 3f31fddf ("jbd: fix >race between >> free buffer and commit transaction") is good approach. > >Fair enough. Could I ask that you (or someone) send a suitable patch >sometime? Yes, sometimes I send you some bug fixing or performance improvement patch. > >I could generate the patch, but I'd never get around to testing it. >Too busy fixing rejects and compile errors :(