Re: [PATCH 1/9] writeback: move dirty inodes from super_block tobacking_dev_info

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:23:56PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> This is a first step at introducing per-bdi flusher threads. We should
> have no change in behaviour, although sb_has_dirty_inodes() is now
> ridiculously expensive, as there's no easy way to answer that question.
> Not a huge problem, since it'll be deleted in subsequent patches.

Looking at this again and again I don't really like this at all. What
is the problem with having per-bdi flushing threads that just iterate
a list of superblocks per-bdi and then the inodes from there?  That
would keep a lot of the calling conventions much more logical, as we
have to writeback data per-sb for all data integrity and some other
writes.

--
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/