On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:12:28PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:41:19AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > I'm feeling relatively good about the first 14 patches to do IO-less > > balance_dirty_pages() and larger writeback chunk size. I'll repost > > them separately as v2 after returning to Shanghai. > > Going for as small as possible patchsets is a pretty good idea. Just > getting the I/O less balance_dirty_pages on it's own would be a really > good start, as that's one of the really criticial pieces of > infrastructure that a lot of people are waiting for. Getting it into > linux-mm/linux-next ASAP so that it gets a lot of testing would be > highly useful. OK, I'll do a smaller IO-less balance_dirty_pages() patchset (it's good to know which part is the most relevant one, which is not always obvious by my limited field experiences), which will further reduce the possible risk of unexpected regressions. Currently the -mm tree includes Greg's patchset "memcg: per cgroup dirty page accounting". I'm going to rebase my patches onto it, however I'd like to first make sure if Greg's patches are going to be pushed in the next merge window. I personally have no problem with that. Andrew? Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>