[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1JF0It-0000yD-Mi@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:07 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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 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. Then to do better ordering by adopting radix tree(or rbtree
if radix tree is not enough), and lastly get rid of the list_heads to
avoid locking. Does it sound like a good path?
--
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