On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:33:21AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16 2009, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:54:46AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:33:43 +0100 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Bear in mind that the XFS guys found that one thread per fs had > > > > insufficient CPU power to keep up with fast devices. > > > > > > Yes, I definitely want to experiment with > 1 thread per device in the > > > near future. > > > > The question here is how to do this efficiently. Even if XFS is > > operating on a single device, it is not optimal just to throw > > multiple threads at the bdi. Ideally we want a thread per region > > (allocation group) of the filesystem as each allocation group has > > it's own inode cache (radix tree) to traverse. These traversals can > > be done completely in parallel and won't contend either at the > > traversal level or in the IO hardware.... > > > > i.e. what I'd like to see is the ability so any new flushing > > mechanism to be able to offload responsibility of tracking, > > traversing and flushing of dirty inodes to the filesystem. > > Filesystems that don't do such things could use a generic > > bdi-based implementation. > > > > FWIW, we also want to avoid the current pattern of flushing > > data, then the inode, then data, then the inode, .... > > By offloading into the filesystem, this writeback ordering can > > be done as efficiently as possible for each given filesystem. > > XFs already has all the hooks to be able to do this > > effectively.... > > > > I know that Christoph was doing some work towards this end; > > perhaps he can throw his 2c worth in here... > > This is very useful feedback, thanks Dave. So on the filesystem vs bdi > side, XFS could register a bdi per allocation group. How do multiple bdis on a single block device interact? > Then set the proper > inode->mapping->backing_dev_info from sb->s_op->alloc_inode and > __mark_inode_dirty() should get the placement right. For private > traverse and flush, provide some address_space op to override > generic_sync_bdi_inodes(). Yes, that seems like it would support the sort of internal XFS structure I've been thinking of. > It sounds like I should move the bdi flushing bits separate from the bdi > itself. Embed one in the bdi, but allow outside registration of others. > Will fit better with the need for more than one flusher per backing > device. *nod* Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
