[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090730015754.GC7326@localhost>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:57:54 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>
Cc: Chad Talbott <ctalbott@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>,
"sandeen@...hat.com" <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:12:26AM +0800, Martin Bligh wrote:
> > I agree on the unification of kupdate and sync paths. In fact I had a
> > patch for doing this. And I'd recommend to do it in two patches:
> > one to fix the congestion case, another to do the code unification.
> >
> > The sync path don't care whether requeue_io() or redirty_tail() is
> > used, because they disregard the time stamps totally - only order of
> > inodes matters (ie. starvation), which is same for requeue_io()/redirty_tail().
>
> But, as I understand it, both paths share the same lists, so we still have
> to be consistent?
Then let's first unify the code, then fix the congestion case? :)
> Also, you set flags like more_io higher up in sync_sb_inodes() based on
> whether there's anything in s_more_io queue, so it still seems to have
> some effect to me?
Yes, maybe in some rare cases.
--
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