From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v20 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:04:31 +0200 Message-ID: <20090911140431.GF14984@kernel.dk> References: <1252654450-25721-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <20090911134241.GB19707@mit.edu> <20090911134501.GA24668@think> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Tso , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jack@suse.cz, Wu Fengguang To: Chris Mason Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090911134501.GA24668@think> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 11 2009, Chris Mason wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:42:41AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:34:03AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > (sorry if you receive this twice, the original posting had a mangled > > > From address). > > > > > > This is the 20th release of the writeback patchset. Changes since > > > v19 include: > > > > > > - Drop the max writeback pages patch from Ted. I think we should do > > > something to that effect, but there's really no reason to entangle > > > it with this patchset. > > > > That's reasonable, but I'd really like to know whether some VM hacker > > going to try to deal with this during the 2.6.32 window? Such as > > maybe Wu Fengguang's patches, perhaps? > > Wu Fengguang's patches seem very reasonable to me. My only concern is > that with tossing it in all at once. I'd rather seen Jens' work go in > and then incremental benchmarking done afterward. OK, if that's the general consensus, then I'll add it back and we can build from there. -- Jens Axboe