[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] Converting writeback linked lists to a tree based data structure
    On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:55:28AM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote:
    > On Jan 15, 2008 7:01 PM, Fengguang Wu <> wrote:
    > > Basically I think rbtree is an overkill to do time based ordering.
    > > Sorry, Michael. But s_dirty would be enough for that. Plus, s_more_io
    > > provides fair queuing between small/large files, and s_more_io_wait
    > > provides waiting mechanism for blocked inodes.
    > I think the flush_tree (which is a little more than just an rbtree)
    > provides the same queuing mechanisms that the three or four lists
    > heads do and manages to do it in one structure. The i_flushed_when
    > provides the ability to have blocked inodes wait their turn so to
    > speak.
    > Another motivation behind the rbtree patch is to unify the data
    > structure that handles the priority and mechanism of how we write out
    > the pages of the inodes. There are some ideas about introducing
    > priority schemes for QOS and such in the future. I am not saying this
    > patch is about making that happen, but the idea is to if possible
    > unify the four stages of lists into a single structure to facilitate
    > efforts like that.

    Yeah, rbtree is better than list_heads after all. Let's make it happen.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-17 04:33    [W:0.021 / U:6.800 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site