On Mon 21-10-19 23:49:04, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 15-10-19 21:40:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:09:33AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Thu 10-10-19 16:40:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 15-10-19 21:40:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:09:33AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 10-10-19 16:40:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -426,7 +431,7 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(str
On Tue 15-10-19 21:40:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:09:33AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 10-10-19 16:40:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -426,7 +431,7 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(struct
> > > work_struct *work)
> > > if (!list_empty(&inode->i_io_l
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:09:33AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 10-10-19 16:40:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > We've noticed that the number of dying cgroups on our production hosts
> > tends to grow with the uptime. This time it's caused by the writeback
> > code.
> >
> > An inode which is getti
On Thu 10-10-19 16:40:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> We've noticed that the number of dying cgroups on our production hosts
> tends to grow with the uptime. This time it's caused by the writeback
> code.
>
> An inode which is getting dirty for the first time is associated
> with the wb structure (loo
We've noticed that the number of dying cgroups on our production hosts
tends to grow with the uptime. This time it's caused by the writeback
code.
An inode which is getting dirty for the first time is associated
with the wb structure (look at __inode_attach_wb()). It can later
be switched to anoth
6 matches
Mail list logo