On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:51:49PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:07 +0800 Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:42:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:25:53 +0800 Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > list_heads are OK if we use them for one and only function.
> > > 
> > > Not really.  They're inappropriate when you wish to remember your
> > > position in the list while you dropped the lock (as we must do in
> > > writeback).
> > > 
> > > A data structure which permits us to interate across the search key rather
> > > than across the actual storage locations is more appropriate.
> > 
> > I totally agree with you. What I mean is to first do the split of
> > functions - into three: ordering, starvation prevention, and blockade
> > waiting.
> 
> Does "ordering" here refer to ordering bt time-of-first-dirty?

Ordering by dirtied_when or i_ino, either is OK.

quoted text
> What is "blockade waiting"?

Some inodes/pages cannot be synced now for some reason and should be
retried after a while.

quoted text
> > Then to do better ordering by adopting radix tree(or rbtree
> > if radix tree is not enough),
> 
> ordering of what?

Switch from time to location.

quoted text
> > and lastly get rid of the list_heads to
> > avoid locking. Does it sound like a good path?
> 
> I'd have thaought that replacing list_heads with another data structure
> would be a simgle commit.

That would be easy. s_more_io and s_more_io_wait can all be converted
to radix trees.

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