[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090526085905.GA5094@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 04:59:05 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 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 04/12] writeback: switch to per-bdi threads for
flushing data
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:56:48AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Hmm, so each BDI flusher thread is going to sync all the superblocks?
> > Isn't there a better way? I suppose we *should* be able to somehow go
> > from a BDI to a superblock (or maybe a list of those) so that we can write
> > per-fs metadata not bound to inodes.
>
> I just moved the sync_supers() to the bdi_forker_task(). That makes it
> global at the same interval of wakeups, instead of doing in the bdi
> threads. It would be nice to sync locally instead, but that's something
> that can wait for later (if ever).
For now it might be easier to just have a separate thread for calling
sync_supers instead of interwinding it with the data writeback.
Btw, XFS currently has a per-device thread for that, to avoid any global
contention.
--
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