lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] writeback: moving expire targets for background/kupdate works
    On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:50:31PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
    > Hi Christoph,
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:34:50PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > > Hi Wu,
    > >
    > > if you're queueing up writeback changes can you look into splitting
    > > inode_wb_list_lock as it was done in earlier versions of the inode
    > > scalability patches? Especially if we don't get the I/O less
    > > balance_dirty_pages in ASAP it'll at least allows us to scale the
    > > busy waiting for the list manipulationes to one CPU per BDI.
    >
    > Do you mean to split inode_wb_list_lock into struct bdi_writeback?
    > So as to improve at least the JBOD case now and hopefully benefit the
    > 1-bdi case when switching to multiple bdi_writeback per bdi in future?
    >
    > I've not touched any locking code before, but it looks like some dumb
    > code replacement. Let me try it :)

    I can do the patch if you want, it would be useful to carry it in your
    series to avoid conflicts, though.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-04-21 07:59    [W:0.022 / U:33.732 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site