Re: [PATCH 0/6] writeback: moving expire targets for background/kupdate works

[Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:56:34PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

I see. I'll do it, thanks!

Thanks,
Fengguang

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>