Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:08:03 +0800 | From | Wu Fengguang <> | Subject | Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout |
| |
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:59:09AM +0800, Martin Bligh wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:12:26AM +0800, Martin Bligh wrote: > >> > I agree on the unification of kupdate and sync paths. In fact I had a > >> > patch for doing this. And I'd recommend to do it in two patches: > >> > one to fix the congestion case, another to do the code unification. > >> > > >> > The sync path don't care whether requeue_io() or redirty_tail() is > >> > used, because they disregard the time stamps totally - only order of > >> > inodes matters (ie. starvation), which is same for requeue_io()/redirty_tail(). > >> > >> But, as I understand it, both paths share the same lists, so we still have > >> to be consistent? > > > > Then let's first unify the code, then fix the congestion case? :) > > OK, I will send it out as separate patches. I am just finishing up the testing > first.
Note that this is a simple fix that may have suboptimal write performance. Here is an old reasoning:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/28/235
Thanks, Fengguang
| |