From: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Chad Talbott <ctalbott@google.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@google.com>,
"sandeen@redhat.com" <sandeen@redhat.com>,
Michael Davidson <md@google.com>
Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:12:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33307c790907291812j40146a96tc2e9c5e097a33615@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090730010630.GA7326@localhost>
> I agree on the unification of kupdate and sync paths. In fact I had a
> patch for doing this. And I'd recommend to do it in two patches:
> one to fix the congestion case, another to do the code unification.
>
> The sync path don't care whether requeue_io() or redirty_tail() is
> used, because they disregard the time stamps totally - only order of
> inodes matters (ie. starvation), which is same for requeue_io()/redirty_tail().
But, as I understand it, both paths share the same lists, so we still have
to be consistent?
Also, you set flags like more_io higher up in sync_sb_inodes() based on
whether there's anything in s_more_io queue, so it still seems to have
some effect to me?
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-30 1:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-28 19:11 Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout Chad Talbott
2009-07-28 21:49 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-29 7:15 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-29 11:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-29 14:11 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 1:06 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 1:12 ` Martin Bligh [this message]
2009-07-30 1:57 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 2:59 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 4:08 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 19:55 ` Martin Bligh
2009-08-01 2:02 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 0:19 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 1:28 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 2:09 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 2:57 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 3:19 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 20:33 ` Martin Bligh
2009-08-01 2:58 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 4:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 1:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 21:39 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:01 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:17 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:34 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:43 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:48 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-31 7:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-08-01 4:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 4:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 5:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 4:02 ` Wu Fengguang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=33307c790907291812j40146a96tc2e9c5e097a33615@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mbligh@google.com \
--cc=akpm@google.com \
--cc=ctalbott@google.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=md@google.com \
--cc=mrubin@google.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).