Fengguang Wu <fengguang...@intel.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:28:42AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>>
>> If bdi has BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK, bdi_forker_thread() doesn't start
>> writeback thread. This means there is no consumer of work item made
>> by bdi_queue_work().
>>
>> This adds to checking of !bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(sb->s_bdi) before
>> calling bdi_queue_work(), otherwise queued work never be consumed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirof...@mail.parknet.co.jp>
>> ---
>>
>> fs/fs-writeback.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff -puN fs/fs-writeback.c~noop_backing_dev_info-check-fix fs/fs-writeback.c
>> --- linux/fs/fs-writeback.c~noop_backing_dev_info-check-fix 2012-09-11
>> 06:12:30.000000000 +0900
>> +++ linux-hirofumi/fs/fs-writeback.c 2012-09-11 06:12:30.000000000 +0900
>> @@ -120,6 +120,9 @@ __bdi_start_writeback(struct backing_dev
>> {
>> struct wb_writeback_work *work;
>>
>> + if (!bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi))
>> + return;
>
> Will someone in the current kernel actually call
> __bdi_start_writeback() on a BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK bdi?
>
> If the answer is no, VM_BUG_ON(!bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi)) looks better.
I guess nobody call it in current kernel though. Hmm.., but we also have
check in __mark_inode_dirty(), nobody should be using it, right?
If we defined it as the bug, I can't see what BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK wants
to do actually. We are not going to allow to disable the writeback task?
I was going to use this to disable writeback task on my developing FS...
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirof...@mail.parknet.co.jp>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
