From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755297Ab1GMPGs (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:06:48 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.67]:56713 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755103Ab1GMPGq (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:06:46 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject: in-reply-to:message-id:references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=D1g64L95KYrAGkWHooAX54OXpegB0+HL2P73MWab4fHxNhCD1oCXIYFc47aMJLOnx fxBKyA1c5HBmxOQE7KYpQ== Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@sister.anvils To: Jan Kara cc: Wu Fengguang , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] writeback: remove writeback_control.more_io In-Reply-To: <20110713111928.GA21787@quack.suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <20110607213236.634026193@intel.com> <20110607213854.888623315@intel.com> <20110712062013.GA4654@localhost> <20110713111928.GA21787@quack.suse.cz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 13-07-11 03:57:40, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > I think we should assume that your -requeue_io +redirty_tail is a good > > fix for the writeback freeze (if you can reassure us, that it does not > > risk postponing some writes indefinitely) > Well, I_FREEING or I_WILL_FREE inodes are written back by iput_final() > and it is reclaim code that is responsible for eventually removing them. So > writeback code can safely ignore them. I_NEW inodes should move out of this > state when they are fully set up and in the writeback round following that, > we will consider them for writeback. So I think the change really makes > sense. That fits. Good, thanks for the reassurance. Hugh