From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v9 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:42:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20090603114241.GN11363@kernel.dk> References: <1243511204-2328-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <4A265A82.8060909@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, chris.mason@oracle.com, david@fromorbit.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jack@suse.cz, yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com, richard@rsk.demon.co.uk, damien.wyart@free.fr To: Artem Bityutskiy Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A265A82.8060909@nokia.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 03 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: >> Here's the 9th version of the writeback patches. Changes since v8: >> >> - Fix a bdi_work on-stack allocation hang. I hope this fixes Ted's >> issue. >> - Get rid of the explicit wait queues, we can just use wake_up_process() >> since it's just for that one task. >> - Add separate "sync_supers" thread that makes sure that the dirty >> super blocks get written. We cannot safely do this from bdi_forker_task(), >> as that risks deadlocking on ->s_umount. Artem, I implemented this >> by doing the wake ups from a timer so that it would be easier for you >> to just deactivate the timer when there are no super blocks. > > I wonder if you would consider to work on top of the latest VFS changes: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git for-next > > For me the problem is that my original patches were created against > the VFS tree, and they do not apply nicely to your tree. So what I've > tried to do - I applied your patches on top of the VFS tree. But they > did not apply cleanly either. I'm currently working on merging them, > but I thought it is better to ask if you already did this. Al, what's the time frame for submitting these vfs changes? I'm assuming 2.6.31 since it's called for-next. If that is the case, then it would be for the best if I rebase on top of those. So, to answer your other ping mail as well, my writeback changes will then be based on top off the vfs tree and then your 0-17 patches. Then we should have a joint base to work from. -- Jens Axboe