[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090730040803.GA20652@localhost>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:08:03 +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 10:59:09AM +0800, Martin Bligh wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > 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? :)
>
> OK, I will send it out as separate patches. I am just finishing up the testing
> first.
Note that this is a simple fix that may have suboptimal write performance.
Here is an old reasoning:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/28/235
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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