linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] writeback: move dirty inodes from super_block to backing_dev

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:35:05 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, richard@....demon.co.uk,
	damien.wyart@...e.fr, fweisbec@...il.com, Alan.Brunelle@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] writeback: move dirty inodes from super_block to
	backing_dev_info

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:23:56PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> This is a first step at introducing per-bdi flusher threads. We should
> have no change in behaviour, although sb_has_dirty_inodes() is now
> ridiculously expensive, as there's no easy way to answer that question.
> Not a huge problem, since it'll be deleted in subsequent patches.

Looking at this again and again I don't really like this at all. What
is the problem with having per-bdi flushing threads that just iterate
a list of superblocks per-bdi and then the inodes from there?  That
would keep a lot of the calling conventions much more logical, as we
have to writeback data per-sb for all data integrity and some other
writes.

--
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/