On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:40:58AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > Christoph, thanks for simplifying this. I wonder also, why do we need > the bdi_pending_list - for me it looks redundant. > > Also, do we need the forker task? It hurts because it wakes up every 5 > sec jut to check whether it has to fork something and to waste the > battery energy. Do we really need to bdi threads to kill themselves > after 5 minutes of inactivity? I don't like the design very much either. I think the problem is that we currently don't have an interface to tell whether a bdi is actually used for a filesystem. We only need the flusher thread any filesystem is using a bdi currently. I've started looking a this, but it's not that easy. First I need to sort out the current bdi_init/register/ unregister/destroy interface which has grown organicly and currenly isn't exacly symmetric. After that I can look into a new interface to start/stop the thread on an otherwise fully set up bdi, which should allow getting rid of the forker and it's complications. -- 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
