[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1205848760.8514.366.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:59:20 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 4/8] mm: allow not updating BDI stats in
end_page_writeback()
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 14:58 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > So the thing that's in your way is that removing a page from the radix
> > > > tree doesn't imply its done writing. So perhaps we should make that
> > > > distinction instead?
> > > >
> > > > So instead of conditionally do part of the accounting, never do it and
> > > > require something like: page_writeback_complete() to be called after a
> > > > successfull test_clear_page_writeback().
> > >
> > > Yes, that's a possibility, but then normal filesystems miss out on the
> > > small optimization provided by doing the BDI accounting functions
> > > inside the same IRQ disabled region as the radix tree operation.
> > > Would that have any significant performance impact?
> >
> > Yeah, realized that. Don't know, would have to measure it somehow...
> > some archs are rather slow with disabling IRQs, but we're talking about
> > writeout which should be dominated by the IO times.
> >
> > Its just that your proposal exposes too much guts, I'd like the
> > interface to be a little higher level.
>
> Well, but this is the kernel, you can't really make foolproof
> interfaces. If we'll go with Andrew's suggestion, I'll add comments
> warning users about not touching those flags unless they know what
> they are doing, OK?
Yeah, I guess so :-)
--
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