[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090407141904.GD31725@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:19:04 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
jack@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block_write_full_page: Use synchronous writes for
WBC_SYNC_ALL writebacks
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 12:23:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I think the number of different greps which was needed to find all the
> above was excessive. Too many levels of wrappers and helpers.
This is true not only for the block I/O code, it's true also for the
page writeback code --- have you ever tried creating a call tree that
traces all of the descendents of sync_inode()?
One of these days when I have a spare week (hah!), I'd love to create
a huge chart of all of the callers into the various wrapper functions
of the page writeback paths, figure out who needs what, and then
collapse the rest.
> > It looks like a good candidate for WRITE_SYNC_PLUG instead,
Yeah, what we'll need to do now that we have the difference between
WRITE_SYNC and WRITE_SYNC_PLUG is to have a way of signalling
(probably via yet another wbc flag) that we want WRITE_SYNC_PLUG and
not WRITE_SYNC, and that the top-level caller of this whole mess will
be responsible for issuing the unplug. I'll try to get something
whipped up.
- Ted
--
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