Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: 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 08:02:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200610150203.GA21733@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200601091904.4786-1-jack@suse.cz>

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).

>  {
> +	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.

>  			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.

>  #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.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-06-10 15:02 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 [this message]
2020-06-10 15:30     ` Jan Kara
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=20200610150203.GA21733@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maco@android.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/3] writeback: Avoid skipping inode writeback' \
    /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

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).