Re: [PATCH] fs-writeback: drop wb->list_lock during blk_finish_plug()

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs-writeback: drop wb->list_lock during blk_finish_plug()
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:47:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150928144757.GB2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyUPuAHrwHewH7356y=tAw=M+o_d0J5CqjjaDMzxN2AEA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 09:12:38AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> So I disagree with your notion that it's a recursion flag. It is
> absolutely nothing of the sort.

OK, agreed. I had it classed under recursion in my head, clearly I
indexed it sloppily. In any case I have a patch that kills off
PREEMPT_ACTIVE entirely.

I just have to clean it up, benchmark, split and write changelogs. But
it should be forthcoming 'soon'. As is, it boots..

> It gets set by preemption - and,
> somewhat illogically, by cond_resched().

I suspect that was done to make cond_resched() (voluntary preemption)
more robust and only have a single preemption path/logic. But all that
was done well before I got involved.