Re: [PATCH 0/6] writeback: moving expire targets forbackground/kupdate works

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:50:31PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> 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 :)

I can do the patch if you want, it would be useful to carry it in your
series to avoid conflicts, though.

--
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/