Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout

[Martin Bligh]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:12:26AM +0800, Martin Bligh wrote:
>> > I agree on the unification of kupdate and sync paths. In fact I had a
>> > patch for doing this. And I'd recommend to do it in two patches:
>> > one to fix the congestion case, another to do the code unification.
>> >
>> > The sync path don't care whether requeue_io() or redirty_tail() is
>> > used, because they disregard the time stamps totally - only order of
>> > inodes matters (ie. starvation), which is same for requeue_io()/redirty_tail().
>>
>> But, as I understand it, both paths share the same lists, so we still have
>> to be consistent?
>
> Then let's first unify the code, then fix the congestion case? :)

OK, I will send it out as separate patches. I am just finishing up the testing
first.

M.
--
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/