[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110421055031.GA23711@localhost>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:50:31 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Itaru Kitayama <kitayama@...bb4u.ne.jp>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] writeback: moving expire targets for
background/kupdate works
Hi Christoph,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:34:50PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Wu,
>
> if you're queueing up writeback changes can you look into splitting
> inode_wb_list_lock as it was done in earlier versions of the inode
> scalability patches? Especially if we don't get the I/O less
> balance_dirty_pages in ASAP it'll at least allows us to scale the
> busy waiting for the list manipulationes to one CPU per BDI.
Do you mean to split inode_wb_list_lock into struct bdi_writeback?
So as to improve at least the JBOD case now and hopefully benefit the
1-bdi case when switching to multiple bdi_writeback per bdi in future?
I've not touched any locking code before, but it looks like some dumb
code replacement. Let me try it :)
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