Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:13:37 +0800 | From | Feng Tang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] jbd2: avoid the concurrent data writeback |
| |
Hi Hellwig,
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:27:32 +0800 Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:59:43PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: > > + * > > + * Sometimes when this get called, the host inode may be under data > > + * syncing initiated by flush thread(especially for a large file), > > and > > + * in such situation, we should skip this path of writeback > > */ > > static int journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space > > *mapping) { > > @@ -181,6 +185,13 @@ static int > > journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space > > *mapping) .range_end = i_size_read(mapping->host), }; > > > > + spin_lock(&inode_lock); > > + if (mapping->host->i_state & I_SYNC) { > > + spin_unlock(&inode_lock); > > + return 0; > > + } > > + spin_unlock(&inode_lock); > > + > > inode_lock is not exported to modules, and that's for a pretty good > reason. I think you want to change this code at a higher level to not > compete with the flusher threads at all. > Good point. The alternative I can think of is to use writeback_in_progress(), thus the check will be changed to:
if (writeback_in_progress(mapping->backing_dev_info)) return 0; This have the same effect as the original patch.
Thanks, Feng
| |