| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS metadata flushing design - current and future |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:10:27 -0400 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20110830070641.GR3162@dastard> |
| References: | <20110827080321.GA16661@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110829010149.GE3162@dastard> <20110829123318.GA12928@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110830012820.GI3162@dastard> <20110830050959.GA8667@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110830070641.GR3162@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:06:42PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > The advantage of using our own list is that we can still then sort > them (might be thousands of buffers we queue in a single pass) > before submitting them for IO. The on-stack plugging doesn't allow > this at all, IIUC, as itis really just a FIFO list above the IO > scheduler queues.... The on-stack plugging already sorts - manually in that code for the request queues (not interesting for us), and currently by block number as well using the elevator. But the current code is more of a guideline, I have some fairly big changes for the that area of block layer in the pipeline. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS metadata flushing design - current and future, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: fix xfs_mark_inode_dirty during umount, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS metadata flushing design - current and future, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Unlimited Free Business Leads, ldensonusa |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |