[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090520120608.GE3760@duck.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:06:08 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] writeback: separate the flushing state/task from
the bdi
On Wed 20-05-09 13:39:18, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, May 20 2009, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 18-05-09 14:19:45, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > Add a struct bdi_writeback for tracking and handling dirty IO. This
> > > is in preparation for adding > 1 flusher task per bdi.
> > Some changes (IMO the most complicated ones ;) in this patch set seem to
> > be just reordering / cleanup of changes which happened in patch #2. Could
> > you maybe move it there. Commented below...
>
> Some of it, most of it is due to switching from one fixed thread to the
> potential of having lots more. The moving code around is mostly due to
> other callers now having to use functions that were below them, and I'd
> rather move them around instead of having prototypes at the top.
I meant mainly the changes in forker thread and such.
> It would be easy to unify the two patches, but I wanted to separate the
> switch from pdflush to 1 bdi thread from the transition from 1 bdi
> thread to several.
Yes, this is probably desirable.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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