linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Converting writeback linked lists to a tree based data structure

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]

Message-Id: <20080116001343.06e4ddab.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:13:43 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>
Cc:	Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>,
	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 18:55:38 +1100 David Chinner <dgc@....com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 07:44:15PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:01:08 +0800 Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:53:42AM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote:
> > > > On Jan 15, 2008 12:46 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > > > > Just a quick question, how does this interact/depend-uppon etc.. with
> > > > > Fengguangs patches I still have in my mailbox? (Those from Dec 28th)
> > > > 
> > > > They don't. They apply to a 2.6.24rc7 tree. This is a candidte for 2.6.25.
> > > > 
> > > > This work was done before Fengguang's patches. I am trying to test
> > > > Fengguang's for comparison but am having problems with getting mm1 to
> > > > boot on my systems.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, they are independent ones. The initial motivation is to fix the
> > > bug "sluggish writeback on small+large files". Michael introduced
> > > a new rbtree, and me introduced a new list(s_more_io_wait).
> > > 
> > > Basically I think rbtree is an overkill to do time based ordering.
> > > Sorry, Michael. But s_dirty would be enough for that. Plus, s_more_io
> > > provides fair queuing between small/large files, and s_more_io_wait
> > > provides waiting mechanism for blocked inodes.
> > > 
> > > The time ordered rbtree may delay io for a blocked inode simply by
> > > modifying its dirtied_when and reinsert it. But it would no longer be
> > > that easy if it is to be ordered by location.
> > 
> > What does the term "ordered by location" mean?  Attemting to sort inodes by
> > physical disk address?  By using their i_ino as a key?
> > 
> > That sounds optimistic.
> 
> In XFS, inode number is an encoding of it's location on disk, so
> ordering inode writeback by inode number *does* make sense.

This code is mainly concerned with writing pagecache data, not inodes.
--
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/