| Message ID | 163911016975.9928.6568675782275129@noble.neil.brown.name (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] FAT: use schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() instead of congestion_wait() | expand |
"NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de> writes: > congestion_wait() in this context is just a sleep - block devices do not > in general support congestion signalling any more. > > The goal here is to wait for any recently written data to get to > storage. blkdev_issue_flush() is thought to be too expensive, so > replace congestion_wait() with an explicit timeout. If just replace, the following looks better set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); io_schedule_timeout(HZ/10); Otherwise, Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> > --- > fs/fat/file.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/fat/file.c b/fs/fat/file.c > index 13855ba49cd9..2321fb3eded5 100644 > --- a/fs/fat/file.c > +++ b/fs/fat/file.c > @@ -175,9 +175,9 @@ long fat_generic_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > static int fat_file_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp) > { > if ((filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) && > - MSDOS_SB(inode->i_sb)->options.flush) { > + MSDOS_SB(inode->i_sb)->options.flush) { > fat_flush_inodes(inode->i_sb, inode, NULL); > - congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10); > + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ/10); > } > return 0; > }
On Sat, 11 Dec 2021, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de> writes: > > > congestion_wait() in this context is just a sleep - block devices do not > > in general support congestion signalling any more. > > > > The goal here is to wait for any recently written data to get to > > storage. blkdev_issue_flush() is thought to be too expensive, so > > replace congestion_wait() with an explicit timeout. > > If just replace, the following looks better > > set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); > io_schedule_timeout(HZ/10); > > Otherwise, > > Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> Thanks. According to MAINTAINERS, I should send patches for this code to you, with the implication (I assumed) that you would forwarded them upstream if acceptable. But the fact that you have send mt an Acked-By seems to suggest that you won't be doing that. To whom should I send this patch with your acked-by? Thanks, NeilBrown
"NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de> writes: > On Sat, 11 Dec 2021, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: >> "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de> writes: >> >> > congestion_wait() in this context is just a sleep - block devices do not >> > in general support congestion signalling any more. >> > >> > The goal here is to wait for any recently written data to get to >> > storage. blkdev_issue_flush() is thought to be too expensive, so >> > replace congestion_wait() with an explicit timeout. >> >> If just replace, the following looks better >> >> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); >> io_schedule_timeout(HZ/10); >> >> Otherwise, >> >> Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> > > Thanks. > According to MAINTAINERS, I should send patches for this code to you, > with the implication (I assumed) that you would forwarded them upstream > if acceptable. > But the fact that you have send mt an Acked-By seems to suggest that you > won't be doing that. > To whom should I send this patch with your acked-by? Ah, sorry. I have no repository. So FAT patches goes to linus tree via akpm's help. So "Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>" and my Acked-by should work (or I will Cc as reply if need). Thanks.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de> writes: > > > On Sat, 11 Dec 2021, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > >> "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de> writes: > >> > >> > congestion_wait() in this context is just a sleep - block devices do not > >> > in general support congestion signalling any more. > >> > > >> > The goal here is to wait for any recently written data to get to > >> > storage. blkdev_issue_flush() is thought to be too expensive, so > >> > replace congestion_wait() with an explicit timeout. > >> > >> If just replace, the following looks better > >> > >> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); > >> io_schedule_timeout(HZ/10); > >> > >> Otherwise, > >> > >> Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> > > > > Thanks. > > According to MAINTAINERS, I should send patches for this code to you, > > with the implication (I assumed) that you would forwarded them upstream > > if acceptable. > > But the fact that you have send mt an Acked-By seems to suggest that you > > won't be doing that. > > To whom should I send this patch with your acked-by? > > Ah, sorry. I have no repository. So FAT patches goes to linus tree via > akpm's help. > > So "Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>" and my Acked-by > should work (or I will Cc as reply if need). Will do, thanks. NeilBrown
diff --git a/fs/fat/file.c b/fs/fat/file.c index 13855ba49cd9..2321fb3eded5 100644 --- a/fs/fat/file.c +++ b/fs/fat/file.c @@ -175,9 +175,9 @@ long fat_generic_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) static int fat_file_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp) { if ((filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) && - MSDOS_SB(inode->i_sb)->options.flush) { + MSDOS_SB(inode->i_sb)->options.flush) { fat_flush_inodes(inode->i_sb, inode, NULL); - congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10); + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ/10); } return 0; }
congestion_wait() in this context is just a sleep - block devices do not in general support congestion signalling any more. The goal here is to wait for any recently written data to get to storage. blkdev_issue_flush() is thought to be too expensive, so replace congestion_wait() with an explicit timeout. Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> --- fs/fat/file.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)