On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Jan Kara 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. > Could you maybe expand the changelog a bit? If I read the patch right > the only thing it does is that it moves from per-sb inode lists to > per-bdi inode lists, right? Also sync_sb_inodes() now writes all the > inodes in the system, not just the ones for that superblock, doesn't it? That is correct, it just moves the dirty lists to the bdi instead of keeping them in the superblock. It does appear that this intermediate step doesn't honor the sb passed in, later in the series it works though. I'll get that fixed up, as the changelog mentions we should not have much change in behaviour at this point :-) -- Jens Axboe -- 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
