From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>,
tj@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] writeback: Avoid skipping inode writeback
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:30:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200610153056.GA20677@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200610150203.GA21733@infradead.org>
On Wed 10-06-20 08:02:03, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This generall looks ok, but a few nitpicks below:
>
> > -static void redirty_tail(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> > +static void __redirty_tail(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb)
>
> I think redirty_tail_locked would be a more decriptive name, and also
> fit other uses in this file (e.g. inode_io_list_move_locked and
> inode_io_list_del_locked).
Fair enough, will do.
> > {
> > + assert_spin_locked(&inode->i_lock);
> > if (!list_empty(&wb->b_dirty)) {
>
> Nit: I find an empty line after asserts and before the real code starts
> nice on the eye.
Sure.
> > break;
> > list_move(&inode->i_io_list, &tmp);
> > moved++;
> > + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > if (flags & EXPIRE_DIRTY_ATIME)
> > - set_bit(__I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED, &inode->i_state);
> > + inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED;
> > + inode->i_state |= I_SYNC_QUEUED;
> > + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>
> I wonder if the locking changes should go into a prep patch vs the
> actual logic changes related to I_SYNC_QUEUED? That would untangle
> the patch quite a bit and make it easier to follow.
OK, will do.
> > #define I_WB_SWITCH (1 << 13)
> > #define I_OVL_INUSE (1 << 14)
> > #define I_CREATING (1 << 15)
> > +#define I_SYNC_QUEUED (1 << 16)
>
> FYI, this conflicts with the I_DONTCAT addition in mainline now.
Yup, I've already found out when rebasing...
Thanks for review!
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-10 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-01 9:18 [PATCH 0/3] writeback: Lazytime handling fix and cleanups Jan Kara
2020-06-01 9:18 ` [PATCH 1/3] writeback: Avoid skipping inode writeback Jan Kara
2020-06-05 14:11 ` Sasha Levin
2020-06-10 15:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-06-10 15:30 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2020-06-01 9:18 ` [PATCH 2/3] writeback: Fix sync livelock due to b_dirty_time processing Jan Kara
2020-06-10 15:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-06-10 15:54 ` Jan Kara
2020-06-10 15:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-06-01 9:18 ` [PATCH 3/3] writeback: Drop I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRE Jan Kara
2020-06-10 15:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-06-10 16:20 ` Jan Kara
2020-06-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 0/3] writeback: Lazytime handling fix and cleanups Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200610153056.GA20677@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maco@android.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).