On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:55:28AM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote: > On Jan 15, 2008 7:01 PM, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Basically I think rbtree is an overkill to do time based ordering. > > Sorry, Michael. But s_dirty would be enough for that. Plus, s_more_io > > provides fair queuing between small/large files, and s_more_io_wait > > provides waiting mechanism for blocked inodes. > > I think the flush_tree (which is a little more than just an rbtree) > provides the same queuing mechanisms that the three or four lists > heads do and manages to do it in one structure. The i_flushed_when > provides the ability to have blocked inodes wait their turn so to > speak. > > Another motivation behind the rbtree patch is to unify the data > structure that handles the priority and mechanism of how we write out > the pages of the inodes. There are some ideas about introducing > priority schemes for QOS and such in the future. I am not saying this > patch is about making that happen, but the idea is to if possible > unify the four stages of lists into a single structure to facilitate > efforts like that.
Yeah, rbtree is better than list_heads after all. Let's make it happen. -- 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/