Re: [PATCH 13/17] writeback: remove writeback_control.more_io
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Date: 2011-05-12 23:04:32
Also in:
lkml
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:57:19PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
When wbc.more_io was first introduced, it indicates whether there are at least one superblock whose s_more_io contains more IO work. Now with the per-bdi writeback, it can be replaced with a simple b_more_io test. Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <redacted> CC: Minchan Kim <redacted> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <redacted> --- fs/fs-writeback.c | 9 ++------- include/linux/writeback.h | 1 - include/trace/events/ext4.h | 6 ++---- include/trace/events/writeback.h | 5 +---- 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)--- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-05-05 23:30:30.000000000 +0800 +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-05-05 23:30:33.000000000 +0800@@ -560,12 +560,8 @@ static int writeback_sb_inodes(struct su iput(inode); cond_resched(); spin_lock(&wb->list_lock); - if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) { - wbc->more_io = 1; + if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) return 1; - } - if (!list_empty(&wb->b_more_io)) - wbc->more_io = 1; } /* b_io is empty */ return 1;@@ -707,7 +703,6 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ wbc.older_than_this = &oldest_jif; } - wbc.more_io = 0; wbc.nr_to_write = write_chunk; wbc.pages_skipped = 0; wbc.inodes_cleaned = 0;@@ -755,7 +750,7 @@ retry: /* * No more inodes for IO, bail */ - if (!wbc.more_io) + if (list_empty(&wb->b_more_io)) break;
We're not holding the wb->list_lock here, so we need to be careful here. I think this is safe given that there shuold only be one flusher thread operating on the list, but when we expand to multiple flusher threads per-bdi, this coul dbe a nasty landmine. A comment is probably in order explaining why this is safe to check unlocked right now... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com