lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] writeback: only use bdi_writeback_all() for WB_SYNC_NONE writeout
On Fri, Sep 11 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > -static struct bdi_work *bdi_alloc_work(struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > +static void bdi_alloc_queue_work(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> > + struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > {
> > struct bdi_work *work;
> >
> > @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ static struct bdi_work *bdi_alloc_work(struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > if (work)
> > bdi_work_init(work, wbc);
> >
> > - return work;
> > + bdi_queue_work(bdi, work);
>
> This is now the only caller of bdi_queue_work that has a NULL work
> argument. I would recommend removing the !work half of bdi_queue_work
> and just inline it into this function (or make it a separate helper).

Yep agreed.

> > /*
> > + * Schedule writeback for all backing devices. Can only be used for
> > + * WB_SYNC_NONE writeback, WB_SYNC_ALL should use bdi_start_writeback()
> > + * and pass in the superblock.
> > */
> > static void bdi_writeback_all(struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > {
> > struct backing_dev_info *bdi;
> >
> > + WARN_ON(wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL);
> > +
> > spin_lock(&bdi_lock);
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(bdi, &bdi_list, bdi_list) {
> > if (!bdi_has_dirty_io(bdi))
> > continue;
> >
> > + bdi_alloc_queue_work(bdi, wbc);
> > }
>
>
> Much nicer than before. Could be even further simplified to:
>
> if (bdi_has_dirty_io(bdi))
> bdi_alloc_queue_work(bdi, wbc);

Sure, matter of style.

> > @@ -1157,6 +1115,7 @@ long sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *sb)
> > {
> > struct writeback_control wbc = {
> > .sb = sb,
> > + .bdi = sb->s_bdi,
> > .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_ALL,
> > .range_start = 0,
> > .range_end = LLONG_MAX,
> > @@ -1164,7 +1123,7 @@ long sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *sb)
> > long nr_to_write = LONG_MAX; /* doesn't actually matter */
> >
> > wbc.nr_to_write = nr_to_write;
> > - bdi_writeback_all(&wbc);
> > + bdi_start_writeback(&wbc);
>
> So here we have a WB_SYNC_ALL caller of bdi_writeback_all and the
> only other caller is WB_SYNC_NONE. Given that after patch two those
> are entirely different codepathes in bdi_start_writeback I would just
> split bdi_start_writeback into two separate functions.

Sure, it'll draw a sharper line between WB_SYNC_NONE and WB_SYNC_ALL.
I'll work on this and the bdi cap dirty flag removal as a follow up.

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-11 20:17    [W:0.053 / U:0.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site