mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: dedekind@infradead.org
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX take 2] [PATCH] write-back: fix nr_to_write counter
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:41:01 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1233668461.30906.4.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1233655712.24809.101.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 12:08 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> From: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:33:49 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] write-back: fix nr_to_write counter
> 
> Commit 05fe478dd04e02fa230c305ab9b5616669821dd3 introduced some
> @wbc->nr_to_write breakage. Here is the change from the commit:
> 
> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> @@ -963,8 +963,10 @@ retry:
>                                 }
>                         }
> 
> -                       if (--nr_to_write <= 0)
> -                               done = 1;
> +                       if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) {
> +                               if (--wbc->nr_to_write <= 0)
> +                                       done = 1;
> +                       }
>                         if (wbc->nonblocking && bdi_write_congested(bdi)) {
>                                 wbc->encountered_congestion = 1;
>                                 done = 1
>                         }

Actually quoting a patch in the description in this manner will make the
patch fail to apply (or fail to apply correctly).  If you must quote the
patch, you should probably prepend ">" or something.

> It makes the following changes:
> 1. Decrement wbc->nr_to_write instead of nr_to_write
> 2. Decrement wbc->nr_to_write _only_ if wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE
> 3. If synced nr_to_write pages, stop only if if wbc->sync_mode ==
> WB_SYNC_NONE, otherwise keep going.
> 
> However, according to the commit message, the intention was to
> only make change 3. Change 1 is a bug. Change 2 does not seem to be
> necessary, and it breaks UBIFS expectations, so if needed, it
> should be done separately later. And change 2 does not seem to
> be documented in the commit message.
> 
> This patch des the following:
> 1. Undo changes 1 and 2
> 2. Add a comment explaining change 3 (it very useful to have comments in
> _code_, not only in the commit).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
> Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> ---
>  mm/page-writeback.c |   21 +++++++++++++++------
>  1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> index b493db7..13a2b8e 100644
> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> @@ -1051,13 +1051,22 @@ continue_unlock:
>  				}
>   			}
> 
> -			if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) {
> -				wbc->nr_to_write--;
> -				if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> -					done = 1;
> -					break;
> -				}
> +			if (nr_to_write > 0)
> +				nr_to_write--;
> +			else if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) {
> +				/*
> +				 * We stop writing back only if we are not
> +				 * doing integrity sync. In case of integrity
> +				 * sync we have to keep going because someone
> +				 * may be concurrently dirtying pages, and we
> +				 * might have synced a lot of newly appeared
> +				 * dirty pages, bud have not synced all of the
> +				 * old dirty pages.
> +				 */
> +				done = 1;
> +				break;
>  			}
> +
>  			if (wbc->nonblocking && bdi_write_congested(bdi)) {
>  				wbc->encountered_congestion = 1;
>  				done = 1;
> -- 
> 1.6.0.6
> 
> 
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center


  reply	other threads:[~2009-02-03 13:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-02-03 10:08 Artem Bityutskiy
2009-02-03 13:41 ` Dave Kleikamp [this message]
2009-02-03 14:45   ` [BUGFIX take 3] " Artem Bityutskiy
     [not found]     ` <49885ABD.2010600@hp.com>
2009-02-03 15:44       ` [BUGFIX take 4] " Artem Bityutskiy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1233668461.30906.4.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com \
    --to=shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dedekind@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®