Re: [RFC PATCH] writeback: move list_lock down into the for loop

2016-02-29 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 29-02-16 09:27:44, Shi, Yang wrote: > On 2/29/2016 7:06 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Fri 26-02-16 08:46:25, Yang Shi wrote: > >>The list_lock was moved outside the for loop by commit > >>e8dfc30582995ae12454cda517b17d6294175b07 ("writeback: elevate queue_io() > >>into wb_writeback())", howe

Re: [RFC PATCH] writeback: move list_lock down into the for loop

2016-02-29 Thread Shi, Yang
On 2/29/2016 7:06 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Fri 26-02-16 08:46:25, Yang Shi wrote: The list_lock was moved outside the for loop by commit e8dfc30582995ae12454cda517b17d6294175b07 ("writeback: elevate queue_io() into wb_writeback())", however, the commit log says "No behavior change", so it soun

Re: [RFC PATCH] writeback: move list_lock down into the for loop

2016-02-29 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 26-02-16 08:46:25, Yang Shi wrote: > The list_lock was moved outside the for loop by commit > e8dfc30582995ae12454cda517b17d6294175b07 ("writeback: elevate queue_io() > into wb_writeback())", however, the commit log says "No behavior change", so > it sounds safe to have the list_lock acquire

[RFC PATCH] writeback: move list_lock down into the for loop

2016-02-26 Thread Yang Shi
The list_lock was moved outside the for loop by commit e8dfc30582995ae12454cda517b17d6294175b07 ("writeback: elevate queue_io() into wb_writeback())", however, the commit log says "No behavior change", so it sounds safe to have the list_lock acquired inside the for loop as it did before. Leave trac