lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix queueing work if !bdi_cap_writeback_dirty()
Date
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com> writes:

>> > And BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK is expected to be a static/constant flag that
>> > always evaluate to true/false for a given bdi. There will be
>> > correctness problems if you change the BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK flag
>> > dynamically.
>>
>> I'm going to use it as static or per-sb by initialized in
>> fill_super(). And it uses always BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK if sb is
>> available. Because own FS task flush instead.
>
> Ah OK, sorry I didn't quite catch your use case.
>
> But then if you set BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK in the beginning, how come
> __bdi_start_writeback() will be called at all?

If we call mark_inode_dirty(inode), inode goes into bdi->wb.b_dirty.
And sync(2) calls __bdi_start_writeback() for all of bdi if bdi->wb.b_*
is not empty.

Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-14 16:41    [W:0.084 / U:0.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site