From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 In-reply-to: <20070219010102.GC9289@think.oraclecorp.com> (message from Chris Mason on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:01:02 -0500) Subject: Re: dirty balancing deadlock References: <20070218125307.4103c04a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070218145929.547c21c7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070218155916.0d3c73a9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070219004537.GB9289@think.oraclecorp.com> <20070219010102.GC9289@think.oraclecorp.com> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:14:15 +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: chris.mason@oracle.com Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > > > In general, writepage is supposed to do work without blocking on > > > expensive locks that will get pdflush and dirty reclaim stuck in this > > > fashion. You'll probably have to take the same approach reiserfs does > > > in data=journal mode, which is leaving the page dirty if fuse_get_req_wp > > > is going to block without making progress. > > > > Pdflush, and dirty reclaim set wbc->nonblocking to true. > > balance_dirty_pages and fsync don't. The problem here is that > > Andrew's patch is wrong to let balance_dirty_pages() try to write back > > pages from a different queue. > > async or sync, writepage is supposed to either make progress or bail. > loopback aside, if the fuse call is blocking long term, you're going to > run into problems. Hmm, like what? Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org