Re: [PATCH 1/8] block: add WRITE_BG

From	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 1/8] block: add WRITE_BG
Date	2016-10-27 08:40 +0200
Message-ID	<swMw2-6AV-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<swDsK-uO-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <swDsK-uO-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

>   *			non-volatile media on completion.
> + * WRITE_BG		Background write. This is for background activity like
> + *			the periodic flush and background threshold writeback
>   *
>   */
>  #define RW_MASK			REQ_OP_WRITE
> @@ -202,6 +204,7 @@ typedef int (dio_iodone_t)(struct kiocb *iocb, loff_t offset,
>  #define WRITE_FLUSH		(REQ_SYNC | REQ_NOIDLE | REQ_PREFLUSH)
>  #define WRITE_FUA		(REQ_SYNC | REQ_NOIDLE | REQ_FUA)
>  #define WRITE_FLUSH_FUA		(REQ_SYNC | REQ_NOIDLE | REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA)
> +#define WRITE_BG		(REQ_NOIDLE | REQ_BG)

I've been trying to kill off these WRITE_ flags as they aren't exactly
helpful, see my branch here that I'm waiting for the previous serious to
go in:

   http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/block.git/shortlog/refs/heads/block-flags

Which also begs the question why you add the REQ_NOIDLE flag above, as
it's only applied to synchronous queues in cfq as far as I can tell.

And while I'm at nitpicking about the most trivial patch of the
series anyway:  any good reason to not just spell out the "BACKGROUND" ?

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH 1/8] block: add WRITE_BG Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2016-10-26 23:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 1/8] block: add WRITE_BG Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-10-27 08:40 +0200

csiph-web