From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: xerofoify@gmail.com (nick)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:24:37 -0400
Subject: Questions about btrfs helper threads
In-Reply-To: <6109.1408945968@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <53F97CD3.5070803@gmail.com>
	<217604.1408893732@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<53FA9D98.3010509@gmail.com> <53FAAE1A.3050603@gmail.com>
	<6109.1408945968@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <53FB6345.1030301@gmail.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org



On 14-08-25 01:52 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 23:31:38 -0400, nick said:
>> In addition , why not create a linked list for the compression in btrfs as we
>> can then do the work using the already build in workqueues for btrfs and
>> improve the scalability of the compression functions and workload it causes as
>> compression is very CPU intensive and we can easily take advance of workquenes
>> in order to allow then to run when idle or rarely when CPU is under heavy load.
> 
> Because fsync() exists.
> 
> 
About my other question how many cores is btrfs scaling to? I would like to known for reasons of understanding
the more strict locking I am finding in the btrfs code.
Nick