[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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:0.061 / U:6.884 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site