Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v8

From: Richard Kennedy
Date: Wed May 27 2009 - 09:06:44 EST


On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 11:41 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's the 8th version of the writeback patches. Changes since v7:
>
> - Fold the "include default_backing_dev_info in writeback" patch into
> the core, we should just do it from the beginning.
> - More series cleanup, I think it should be mostly complete now. No
> hunks are split between patches now (things like comments for
> functions added earlier, and so on).
> - Fix hang with calling bdi_wait_on_work_clear() inside the bdi_lock
> mutex when the default wb thread had exited.
> - Fix hang with queuing work on exited wb thread, it would have no
> receipients since the default wb thread wrongly cleared the bit
> from the register mask on exit. It must be persistent, which is
> why it gets initialized on bdi_register() already.
>
> For ease of patching, I've put the full diff here:
>
> http://kernel.dk/writeback-v8.patch
>
> and also stored this in a writeback-v7 branch that will not change,
> you can pull that into Linus tree from here:
>
> git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git writeback-v8
>
> b/block/blk-core.c | 1
> b/drivers/block/aoe/aoeblk.c | 1
> b/drivers/char/mem.c | 1
> b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 24 -
> b/fs/buffer.c | 2
> b/fs/char_dev.c | 1
> b/fs/configfs/inode.c | 1
> b/fs/fs-writeback.c | 807 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> b/fs/fuse/inode.c | 1
> b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 1
> b/fs/nfs/client.c | 1
> b/fs/ntfs/super.c | 33 -
> b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmfs.c | 1
> b/fs/ramfs/inode.c | 1
> b/fs/super.c | 3
> b/fs/sync.c | 2
> b/fs/sysfs/inode.c | 1
> b/fs/ubifs/super.c | 1
> b/include/linux/backing-dev.h | 74 +++
> b/include/linux/fs.h | 11
> b/include/linux/writeback.h | 15
> b/kernel/cgroup.c | 1
> b/mm/Makefile | 2
> b/mm/backing-dev.c | 476 +++++++++++++++++++-
> b/mm/page-writeback.c | 151 ------
> b/mm/swap_state.c | 1
> b/mm/vmscan.c | 2
> mm/pdflush.c | 269 -----------
> 28 files changed, 1248 insertions(+), 637 deletions(-)
>
Hi Jens,

This is working nicely for me. It's successfully built a kernel with no
problems at all, so you've fixed the earlier problem I had.

Early fio tests writing to 2 disks at the same time indicate that it's
faster too. But there's a fair amount of variability so I will run more
tests & see what the trend really is.

regards
Richard


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/