On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 06:12:50PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > OK, so you'd prefer leaving the super block lists in place and rather > have the super blocks hanging off the bdi? That would solve the above problem. It would also implicitly provide increased locality by always writing batches of dirty inodes per fs. > What about file systems that > support more than one block device per mount, like btrfs? Or XFS :) > Can we assume > that they will forever provide a single bdi backing? btrfs currently has > this, just wondering about future implications. I don't see any point to assume things are forever. For making progress on this and getting it merged in .32 making that assumption is a good one IMHO. Now the question about that to do with a filesystem on multiple actual backing device is an interesting one. What about the case of having btrfs just one half of two disks each? Or same with a "normal" fs ontop of LVM/MD? Maybe in the end one thread(-pool) per filesystem and not just per backing dev is the way forward, with the threads schedule so that they don't interfer if they operate on the same backing dev? > > -- > Jens Axboe > ---end quoted text--- -- 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
