lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] vfs: Merge sync_supers(), sync_filesystems() and sync_blockdevs()
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 05:56:21PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> These three functions are quite similar so merge them to save superblock list
> traversal code. As a bonus we get livelock avoidance for all these superblock
> traversals. Also remove the condition that if wait == 0 and sb->s_dirt is
> not set, then ->sync_fs() is not called. This does not really make much sence
> since s_dirt is generally used by filesystem to mean that ->write_super() needs
> to be called. But ->sync_fs() does different things. I even suspect that some
> filesystems (btrfs?) sets s_dirt just to fool this logic.

Some more comments after looking at it in more details:

- the FSSYNC_SUPER case really needs to do a trylock on the mutex,
otherwise any in-progress sync would block pdflush for a long time.
And as any real sync should write out the superblock it's not needed
anyway during that time. (Need to double-check the filesystems,
though)
- sync_filesystems really should move to fs/sync.c
- I get more and more inclined to make sync just case of looping over
the superblocks and do an fsync_super. A plain sync fsync_super
might be too slow so we can try to do an async one first and then
a sync one as a second pass
- that wakeup_pdflush in do_sync looks extremly fishy, we need to do
all page writeback via sync_inodes_(sb) anyway, and doing this in
parallel from pdflush just introduced tons of potential race
opportunities
- now if sync_filesystems just ends up calling __fsync_super for
the normal sync path I wonder if there really is a point unifying
it with the periodic write_super case.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-23 14:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans