[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080115215149.a881efff.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:51:49 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
Cc: Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Converting writeback linked lists to a tree based data
structure
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:07 +0800 Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:42:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:25:53 +0800 Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> >
> > > list_heads are OK if we use them for one and only function.
> >
> > Not really. They're inappropriate when you wish to remember your
> > position in the list while you dropped the lock (as we must do in
> > writeback).
> >
> > A data structure which permits us to interate across the search key rather
> > than across the actual storage locations is more appropriate.
>
> I totally agree with you. What I mean is to first do the split of
> functions - into three: ordering, starvation prevention, and blockade
> waiting.
Does "ordering" here refer to ordering bt time-of-first-dirty?
What is "blockade waiting"?
> Then to do better ordering by adopting radix tree(or rbtree
> if radix tree is not enough),
ordering of what?
> and lastly get rid of the list_heads to
> avoid locking. Does it sound like a good path?
I'd have thaought that replacing list_heads with another data structure
would be a simgle commit.
--
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