Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:57:54 +0800 | From | Wu Fengguang <> | Subject | Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout |
| |
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:12:26AM +0800, Martin Bligh wrote: > > I agree on the unification of kupdate and sync paths. In fact I had a > > patch for doing this. And I'd recommend to do it in two patches: > > one to fix the congestion case, another to do the code unification. > > > > The sync path don't care whether requeue_io() or redirty_tail() is > > used, because they disregard the time stamps totally - only order of > > inodes matters (ie. starvation), which is same for requeue_io()/redirty_tail(). > > But, as I understand it, both paths share the same lists, so we still have > to be consistent?
Then let's first unify the code, then fix the congestion case? :)
> Also, you set flags like more_io higher up in sync_sb_inodes() based on > whether there's anything in s_more_io queue, so it still seems to have > some effect to me?
Yes, maybe in some rare cases.
| |