lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Converting writeback linked lists to a tree based data structure
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:51:49PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:07 +0800 Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:42:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:25:53 +0800 Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> > >
> > > > list_heads are OK if we use them for one and only function.
> > >
> > > Not really. They're inappropriate when you wish to remember your
> > > position in the list while you dropped the lock (as we must do in
> > > writeback).
> > >
> > > A data structure which permits us to interate across the search key rather
> > > than across the actual storage locations is more appropriate.
> >
> > I totally agree with you. What I mean is to first do the split of
> > functions - into three: ordering, starvation prevention, and blockade
> > waiting.
>
> Does "ordering" here refer to ordering bt time-of-first-dirty?

Ordering by dirtied_when or i_ino, either is OK.

> What is "blockade waiting"?

Some inodes/pages cannot be synced now for some reason and should be
retried after a while.

> > Then to do better ordering by adopting radix tree(or rbtree
> > if radix tree is not enough),
>
> ordering of what?

Switch from time to location.

> > and lastly get rid of the list_heads to
> > avoid locking. Does it sound like a good path?
>
> I'd have thaought that replacing list_heads with another data structure
> would be a simgle commit.

That would be easy. s_more_io and s_more_io_wait can all be converted
to radix trees.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-16 10:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans