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 01:56:34PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

I see. I'll do it, thanks!

Thanks,
Fengguang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-21 08:09    [W:0.092 / U:18.076 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site