Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout

[Wu Fengguang]

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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/