From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p5U6tU4u187713 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:55:31 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 3127F1E57226 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id tMSfENt6opLQtJNY for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:55:29 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/27] xfs: remove the unused ilock_nowait codepath in writepage Message-ID: <20110630065529.GA10893@infradead.org> References: <20110629140109.003209430@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110629140336.717434334@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110630001525.GU561@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110630001525.GU561@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:15:25AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:01:11AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > wbc->nonblocking is never set, so this whole code has been unreachable > > for a long time. I'm also not sure it would make a lot of sense - > > we'd rather finish our writeout after a short wait for the ilock > > instead of cancelling the whole ioend. > > I'd suggest that the only thing that should be dropped is the > wbc->nonblocking check. Numbers would be good to validate that this > is still relevant, but I don't have a storage subsystem with enough > bandwidth to drive a flusher thread to being CPU bound... I don't mind re-introducing this if we actuall have a testcase for it. Note that simply keeping the code won't work for the writepages implementation as we'd cancel the whole ioend if one lock fails, discarding potentially a lot of I/O. It's already bad enough with the simpler clustering we have in the current code. Back in SLES10 / 2.6.16 when the code could still be reached we only did it for the bmap calls directly from writepage, but not from the writeout clustering. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs