lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/7] writeback: separate starting of sync vs opportunistic writeback
On Mon, Sep 14 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:33:07PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 14-09-09 11:36:33, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > bdi_start_writeback() is currently split into two paths, one for
> > > WB_SYNC_NONE and one for WB_SYNC_ALL. Add bdi_sync_writeback()
> > > for WB_SYNC_ALL writeback and let bdi_start_writeback() handle
> > > only WB_SYNC_NONE.
> > What I don't like about this patch is that if somebody sets up
> > writeback_control with WB_SYNC_ALL mode set and then submits it to disk via
> > bdi_start_writeback() it will just silently convert his writeback to an
> > asynchronous one.
> > So I'd maybe leave setting of sync_mode to the caller and just WARN_ON if
> > it does not match the purpose of the function...
>
> Or initialize the wb entirely inside these functions. For the sync case
> we really only need a superblock as argument, and for writeback it's
> bdi + nr_pages. And also make sure they consistenly return void as
> no one cares about the return value.

Yes, I thought about doing that and like that better than the warning.
Just pass in the needed args and allocate+fill the wbc on stack. I'll
make that change.

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-14 21:31    [W:0.058 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site