[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1279628599.16462.120.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:23:19 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 14/16] writeback: move bdi threads exiting logic
to the forker thread
On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 03:02 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > + if (wakeup_default) {
> > trace_writeback_nothread(bdi, work);
> > wake_up_process(default_backing_dev_info.wb.task);
>
> Why not simply do the defaul thread wakeup under wb_lock, too?
> It keeps the code a lot simpler, and this is not a typical path anyway.
Will address.
> > if (dirty_writeback_interval) {
> > + unsigned long wait_jiffies;
> > +
> > wait_jiffies = msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10);
> > schedule_timeout(wait_jiffies);
>
> No real need for a local variable here.
Will address.
> > @@ -364,7 +395,7 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
> > if (!list_empty(&me->bdi->work_list))
> > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> >
> > - if (!fork) {
> > + if (!fork && !kill) {
>
> I think the code here would be a lot cleaner if you implement the
> suggestion I have for the forking restructuring.
As I replied earlier, to fork/kill the the thread from inside list walk
we'd need to drop the spinlock, which is not very nice. So I am keeping
this part intact so far.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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