On 2010-07-09 09:52, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:48 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:43:22PM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: >>> Hmm, was thinking about this while driving home - the forker approach >>> has a good resilience property - if it cannot fork - it'll do the stuff >>> itself. I have a feeling that if something like this to be implemented >>> with the approach I suggested, we'll end up with similar level of >>> complexity that we wanted to get rid of... >> >> Yes, the lazy starting is what adds the complexity. I think starting >> it once we have any filesystem mounted on the bdi and stop it once all >> filesystems are gone is a lot simpler and more elegant. > > But what about cases like 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda4'? They also > involve dirty data write-back. You would have to do it at device open time, if the thread does not already exist. Not sure this is all worth it, I think the complexity of the lazy create/exit is a bit exaggerated. -- 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
