On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:07 +0800 Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:42:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:25:53 +0800 Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > list_heads are OK if we use them for one and only function. > > > > Not really. They're inappropriate when you wish to remember your > > position in the list while you dropped the lock (as we must do in > > writeback). > > > > A data structure which permits us to interate across the search key rather > > than across the actual storage locations is more appropriate. > > I totally agree with you. What I mean is to first do the split of > functions - into three: ordering, starvation prevention, and blockade > waiting. Does "ordering" here refer to ordering bt time-of-first-dirty? What is "blockade waiting"? > Then to do better ordering by adopting radix tree(or rbtree > if radix tree is not enough), ordering of what? > and lastly get rid of the list_heads to > avoid locking. Does it sound like a good path? I'd have thaought that replacing list_heads with another data structure would be a simgle commit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
