From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8ED6B0082 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spaceape11.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape11.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.145]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n6U2xDvB016433 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:59:13 -0700 Received: from pzk2 (pzk2.prod.google.com [10.243.19.130]) by spaceape11.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n6U2x94g025034 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:59:10 -0700 Received: by pzk2 with SMTP id 2so227093pzk.30 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:59:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090730015754.GC7326@localhost> References: <1786ab030907281211x6e432ba6ha6afe9de73f24e0c@mail.gmail.com> <33307c790907281449k5e8d4f6cib2c93848f5ec2661@mail.gmail.com> <33307c790907290015m1e6b5666x9c0014cdaf5ed08@mail.gmail.com> <20090729114322.GA9335@localhost> <33307c790907290711s320607b0i79c939104d4c2d61@mail.gmail.com> <20090730010630.GA7326@localhost> <33307c790907291812j40146a96tc2e9c5e097a33615@mail.gmail.com> <20090730015754.GC7326@localhost> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:59:09 -0700 Message-ID: <33307c790907291959r47b1bd3ap7cfa06fd5154aaad@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout From: Martin Bligh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Wu Fengguang Cc: Chad Talbott , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Michael Rubin , Andrew Morton , "sandeen@redhat.com" , Michael Davidson List-ID: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:12:26AM +0800, Martin Bligh wrote: >> > 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? > > Then let's first unify the code, then fix the congestion case? :) OK, I will send it out as separate patches. I am just finishing up the testing first. M. -- 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: email@kvack.org