[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1JFLTR-0002pn-4Y@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:31:25 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
To: Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Converting writeback linked lists to a tree based data structure
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:55:28AM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 7:01 PM, Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think the flush_tree (which is a little more than just an rbtree)
> provides the same queuing mechanisms that the three or four lists
> heads do and manages to do it in one structure. The i_flushed_when
> provides the ability to have blocked inodes wait their turn so to
> speak.
>
> Another motivation behind the rbtree patch is to unify the data
> structure that handles the priority and mechanism of how we write out
> the pages of the inodes. There are some ideas about introducing
> priority schemes for QOS and such in the future. I am not saying this
> patch is about making that happen, but the idea is to if possible
> unify the four stages of lists into a single structure to facilitate
> efforts like that.
Yeah, rbtree is better than list_heads after all. Let's make it happen.
--
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