From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752033Ab1GSPyh (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:54:37 -0400 Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:53980 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751481Ab1GSPyg (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:54:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:54:31 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Curt Wohlgemuth Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: Don't wait for completion in writeback_inodes_sb_nr Message-ID: <20110719155431.GA5631@infradead.org> References: <1309304616-8657-1-git-send-email-curtw@google.com> <20110629005422.GQ32466@dastard> <20110629081155.GA5558@infradead.org> <20110629180010.GB32236@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:30:17PM -0700, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote: > I can definitely see how tagging with the start of sync would be > helpful; also how going from three to two passes seems like a > no-brainer. > > But what's the real point of doing even two passes -- one SYNC_NONE > followed by one SYNC_ALL? Is it try to get through as many inodes as > possible before we potentially lock up by waiting on an inode on an > unavailable device? Yes. Or at least that's the idea, I'd love to see an actual prove for it.