From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] writeback: moving expire targets for background/kupdate works Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:56:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20110421055634.GA26187@infradead.org> References: <20110419030003.108796967@intel.com> <20110421043449.GA22423@infradead.org> <20110421055031.GA23711@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Jan Kara , Mel Gorman , Dave Chinner , Trond Myklebust , Itaru Kitayama , Minchan Kim , LKML , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Memory Management List To: Wu Fengguang Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110421055031.GA23711@localhost> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:50:31PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > Hi Christoph, > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:34:50PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Hi Wu, > > > > if you're queueing up writeback changes can you look into splitting > > inode_wb_list_lock as it was done in earlier versions of the inode > > scalability patches? Especially if we don't get the I/O less > > balance_dirty_pages in ASAP it'll at least allows us to scale the > > busy waiting for the list manipulationes to one CPU per BDI. > > Do you mean to split inode_wb_list_lock into struct bdi_writeback? > So as to improve at least the JBOD case now and hopefully benefit the > 1-bdi case when switching to multiple bdi_writeback per bdi in future? > > I've not touched any locking code before, but it looks like some dumb > code replacement. Let me try it :) I can do the patch if you want, it would be useful to carry it in your series to avoid conflicts, though. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org