[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 02:48:26 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: "Peter W. Morreale" <pmorreale@...ell.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] pdflush fix and enhancement
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 09:08:26AM -0700, Peter W. Morreale wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 14:27 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > I say most because the assumption would be that we will be successful in
> > > creating the new thread. Not that bad an assumption I think. Besides,
> >
> > And that the memory read is not reordered (rmb()).
> >
>
> At the risk of showing my b*tt here... I'm not very clear on memory
> barriers, is this necessary even inside a critical region? (recall
> we're protected by the spin lock).
You're right the implied barriers in the spinlock are probably enough.
Never mind.
> If so, does the barrier go after the
> read, or before? (Thanks for not laughing, however grins are allowed)
Before.
BTW on x86 it's a nop either way, but not on all other architectures.
>
>
> >
> > Ok it probably needs some kind of feedback mechanism.
> >
>
> Actually, I tend to think we need an entirely different approach to
> flushing, please see my post to David Chinner which outlines some
> thoughts. Basically a flushing heuristic that takes into account the
> characteristics of the various block devices.
Ideally discovered at runtime (e.g. by watching queue lengths/service
times etc.) though. Otherwise the kernel would need to have knowledge
about the properties of all kinds of devices.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists