Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:28:07 -0700 | | Subject | Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout | | From | Martin Bligh <> |
| |
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Martin Bligh<mbligh@google.com> wrote: > BTW, can you explain this code at the bottom of generic_sync_sb_inodes > for me? > > if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) { > wbc->more_io = 1; > break; > } > > I don't understand why we are setting more_io here? AFAICS, more_io > means there's more stuff to write ... I would think we'd set this if > nr_to_write was > 0 ? > > Or just have the section below brought up above this > break check and do: > > if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io) || !list_empty(&sb->s_io)) > wbc->more_io = 1; > > Am I just misunderstanding the intent of more_io ?
I am thinking along the lines of:
@@ -638,13 +609,11 @@ sync_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb, s iput(inode); cond_resched(); spin_lock(&inode_lock); - if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) { - wbc->more_io = 1; + if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) break; - } - if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io)) - wbc->more_io = 1; } + if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io) || !list_empty(&sb->s_io) + wbc->more_io = 1; return; /* Leave any unwritten inodes on s_io */ } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |