On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 02:13:08PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
* WQ_MEM_RECLAIM for the scrub thread does not seem right
I think scrub_workers,scrub_wr_completion_workers still need WQ_MEM_RECLAIM.
However scrub_nocow_workers does not need WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flags.
Did you mean this?
If you
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:50:50 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 02:13:08PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
* WQ_MEM_RECLAIM for the scrub thread does not seem right
I think scrub_workers,scrub_wr_completion_workers still need WQ_MEM_RECLAIM.
However scrub_nocow_workers does not need
On thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:37:18 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 04:08:15PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Use kernel workqueue and kernel workqueue based new btrfs_workqueue_struct to
replace
the old btrfs_workers.
The main goal is to reduce the redundant codes(800 lines vs 200 lines)
Use kernel workqueue and kernel workqueue based new btrfs_workqueue_struct to
replace
the old btrfs_workers.
The main goal is to reduce the redundant codes(800 lines vs 200 lines) and
try to get benefits from the latest workqueue changes.
About the performance, the test suite I used is bonnie++,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 04:08:15PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Use kernel workqueue and kernel workqueue based new btrfs_workqueue_struct to
replace
the old btrfs_workers.
The main goal is to reduce the redundant codes(800 lines vs 200 lines) and
try to get benefits from the latest workqueue
于 2013年09月13日 01:37, David Sterba 写道:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 04:08:15PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Use kernel workqueue and kernel workqueue based new btrfs_workqueue_struct to
replace
the old btrfs_workers.
The main goal is to reduce the redundant codes(800 lines vs 200 lines) and
try to get
