From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] writeback: separate the flushing state/task from the bdi Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:39:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20090520113918.GU11363@kernel.dk> References: <1242649192-16263-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1242649192-16263-5-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <20090520113430.GD3760@duck.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chris.mason@oracle.com, david@fromorbit.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:44361 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754251AbZETLjR (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2009 07:39:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090520113430.GD3760@duck.suse.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 20 2009, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 18-05-09 14:19:45, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Add a struct bdi_writeback for tracking and handling dirty IO. This > > is in preparation for adding > 1 flusher task per bdi. > Some changes (IMO the most complicated ones ;) in this patch set seem to > be just reordering / cleanup of changes which happened in patch #2. Could > you maybe move it there. Commented below... Some of it, most of it is due to switching from one fixed thread to the potential of having lots more. The moving code around is mostly due to other callers now having to use functions that were below them, and I'd rather move them around instead of having prototypes at the top. It would be easy to unify the two patches, but I wanted to separate the switch from pdflush to 1 bdi thread from the transition from 1 bdi thread to several. -- Jens Axboe