[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/9] blkcg, writeback: Add wbc->no_wbc_acct
On Mon 24-06-19 05:58:56, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jan.
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:21:30AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > OK, now I understand. Just one more question: So effectively, you are using
> > wbc->no_wbc_acct to pass information from btrfs code to btrfs code telling
> > it whether IO should or should not be accounted with wbc_account_io().
> Yes.
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to just pass this information internally
> > within btrfs? Granted, if this mechanism gets more widespread use by other
> > filesystems, then probably using wbc flag makes more sense. But I'm not
> > sure if this isn't a premature generalization...
> The btrfs async issuers end up using generic writeback path and uses
> the generic wbc owner mechanisms so that ios are attached to the right
> cgroup too. So, I kinda prefer to provide a generic mechanism from
> wbc side.

OK, I can live with that. We just have to be kind of careful so that people
just don't sprinkle no_wbc_acct writeback around because they don't know
better. Maybe you could at least add comment to no_wbc_acct mentioning that
this is for the cases where writeback has already been accounted for?

> That said, the names are a bit misleading and I think it'd
> be better to rename them to something more explicit, e.g. sth along
> the line of wbc_update_cgroup_owner() and wbc->no_cgroup_owner. What
> do you think?

Yeah, renaming would probably make things clearer as well.

Jan Kara <>

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-24 18:39    [W:0.049 / U:9.152 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site