[add CC to afs/cifs/ceph maintainers]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:55:53AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:37:10AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:15:25AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:

quoted

I'm looking at backporting some upstream changes to earlier kernels,
and ran across something I don't quite understand...

In nfs_commit_unstable_pages, we set the flags to FLUSH_SYNC. We then
zero out the flags if wbc->nonblocking or wbc->for_background is set.

Shouldn't we also clear it out if wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE ?
WB_SYNC_NONE means "don't wait on anything", so shouldn't that include
not waiting on the COMMIT to complete?

I've been trying to figure out what the nonblocking flag is supposed
to mean for a while now.

It basically disappeared in commit 0d99519efef15fd0cf84a849492c7b1deee1e4b7

	"writeback: remove unused nonblocking and congestion checks"

from Wu.  What's left these days is a couple of places in local copies
of write_cache_pages (afs, cifs), and a couple of checks in random
writepages instances (afs, block_write_full_page, ceph, nfs, reiserfs, xfs)
and the use in nfs_write_inode.

In principle all nonblocking checks in ->writepages should be removed.

(My original patch does have chunks for afs/cifs that somehow get
 dropped in the process, and missed ceph because it's not upstream
 when I started patch..)

quoted

It's only actually set for memory
migration and pageout, that is VM writeback.

To me it really doesn't make much sense, but maybe someone has a better
idea what it is for.

 
Since migration and pageout still set nonblocking for ->writepage, we
may keep them in the near future, until VM does not start IO on itself.

quoted

quoted

+	if (wbc->nonblocking || wbc->for_background ||
+	    wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE)

You could remove the nonblocking and for_background checks as
these impliy WB_SYNC_NONE.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Fengguang