From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] writeback: support > 1 flusher thread per bdi Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:01:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20090831130125.GC20465@infradead.org> References: <1251720891-19793-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1251720891-19793-6-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> 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, jack@suse.cz To: Jens Axboe Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:49880 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753030AbZHaNBX (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:01:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1251720891-19793-6-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 02:14:46PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > Build on the bdi_writeback support by allowing registration of > more than 1 flusher thread. File systems can call bdi_add_flusher_task(bdi) > to add more flusher threads to the device. If they do so, they must also > provide a super_operations function to return the suitable bdi_writeback > struct from any given inode. Please drop this for now. It adds a lot of unused and untestede code including a dead on arrival inode operation. Once we are going to add actual multiple flusher threads we can revise it. But I don't think for example that the operation in it's current form makese too much sense - the most logical way to add multiple flushers per filesystems would be having multiple bdis of some sort.