On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:56:34PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:50:31PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > Hi Christoph, > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:34:50PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Hi Wu, > > > > > > if you're queueing up writeback changes can you look into splitting > > > inode_wb_list_lock as it was done in earlier versions of the inode > > > scalability patches? Especially if we don't get the I/O less > > > balance_dirty_pages in ASAP it'll at least allows us to scale the > > > busy waiting for the list manipulationes to one CPU per BDI. > > > > Do you mean to split inode_wb_list_lock into struct bdi_writeback? > > So as to improve at least the JBOD case now and hopefully benefit the > > 1-bdi case when switching to multiple bdi_writeback per bdi in future? > > > > I've not touched any locking code before, but it looks like some dumb > > code replacement. Let me try it :) > > I can do the patch if you want, it would be useful to carry it in your > series to avoid conflicts, though. I see. I'll do it, thanks! 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>