From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: writeback merge status, was Re: [PATCH 00/18] writeback fixes and cleanups for 2.6.40 (v3)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 08:13:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110607121335.GA14080@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110602022919.GB6015@localhost>
It looks like we once again got no writeback fixes merged for $NEXT,
even with Wu having a very nice, well reviewed and tested series of
fairly trivial patches.
I'm getting really frustrated about this. We need a lot of work to
make writeback not suck with todays hardware and workloads, nevermind
tomorrows, and we're getting stalled for completely untransparent
reasons. Basically people doing the work move ahead, then it gets stuck
in -mm which doesn't even get into linux-next and gets completely
stalled there. So my vote is to have a proper peer-reviewed writeback
git tree, handled like all the other git trees we have, that is
maintained e.g. by Wu and make progress with that.
After fixing all those basic issues we have other big items like
I/O-less balance_dirty_pages and the memcg integration on our plate,
and with the current rate of progress we won't get there before Linux
4.0.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-07 12:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-19 21:45 [PATCH 00/18] writeback fixes and cleanups for 2.6.40 (v3) Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 01/18] writeback: introduce .tagged_writepages for the WB_SYNC_NONE sync stage Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 02/18] writeback: update dirtied_when for synced inode to prevent livelock Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 03/18] writeback: introduce writeback_control.inodes_cleaned Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 04/18] writeback: try more writeback as long as something was written Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 05/18] writeback: the kupdate expire timestamp should be a moving target Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 06/18] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background writeback Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 07/18] writeback: refill b_io iff empty Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 08/18] writeback: split inode_wb_list_lock into bdi_writeback.list_lock Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 09/18] writeback: elevate queue_io() into wb_writeback() Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 10/18] writeback: avoid extra sync work at enqueue time Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 11/18] writeback: add bdi_dirty_limit() kernel-doc Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 12/18] writeback: skip balance_dirty_pages() for in-memory fs Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 13/18] writeback: remove writeback_control.more_io Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 14/18] writeback: make writeback_control.nr_to_write straight Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 22:06 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 23:29 ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-20 4:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-20 6:52 ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-20 7:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-20 7:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 15/18] writeback: remove .nonblocking and .encountered_congestion Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 16/18] writeback: trace event writeback_single_inode Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 17/18] writeback: trace event writeback_queue_io Wu Fengguang
2011-05-19 21:45 ` [PATCH 18/18] writeback: rearrange the wb_writeback() loop Wu Fengguang
2011-05-23 9:07 ` [PATCH 00/18] writeback fixes and cleanups for 2.6.40 (v3) Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-23 9:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-24 3:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-06-01 22:31 ` Andrew Morton
2011-06-02 2:29 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-06-07 12:13 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2011-06-07 20:15 ` writeback merge status, was " Andrew Morton
2011-06-07 21:11 ` 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=20110607121335.GA14080@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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