[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1279712741.2306.36.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:45:41 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 11/11] writeback: prevent unnecessary bdi threads
wakeups
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 12:31 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> +
> + if (wakeup_bdi) {
> + spin_lock(&bdi->wb_lock);
> + if (!bdi->wb.task)
> + wake_up_process(default_backing_dev_info.wb.task);
> + else
> + wake_up_process(bdi->wb.task);
> + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock);
> + }
> }
Dave,
I do not know whether this stuff will end up in upstream, I did not get
any feed back from Jens so far. But if it will, I'd like to let you know
that the code quoted above is similar to the 'bdi_queue_work()'
function. And the purpose is very similar. But you added a
'trace_writeback_nothread()' call to 'bdi_queue_work()', and I think a
similar call has to be here.
Can I call 'trace_writeback_nothread()'? I guess not. Should I create
another trace point? Any hints/instructions?
Note, the patches are against Jens' tree.
Please, see linux-fsdevel or lkml for the full patch and its purposes.
--
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