On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:46:25 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Note that dirty_time may not be unique, so need some workaround. And > the resulted rbtree implementation may not be more efficient than > several list traversals even for a very large list (as long as > superblocks numbers are low). > > The good side is, once sb+dirty_time rbtree is implemented, it should > be trivial to switch the key to sb+inode_number (also may not be > unique), and to do location ordered writeback ;) would you want to sort by dirty time, or by inode number? (assuming inode number is loosely related to location on disk) -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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
