Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754302AbXJ0JfW (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:35:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751237AbXJ0JfG (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:35:06 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:47159 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751607AbXJ0JfD (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:35:03 -0400 Subject: Networked filesystems vs backing_dev_info From: Peter Zijlstra To: linux-kernel , linux-fsdevel Cc: David Howells , sfrench@samba.org, jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu, Andrew Morton , vandrove@vc.cvut.cz Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:34:26 +0200 Message-Id: <1193477666.5648.61.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 901 Lines: 25 Hi, I had me a little look at bdi usage in networked filesystems. NFS, CIFS, (smbfs), AFS, CODA and NCP And of those, NFS is the only one that I could find that creates backing_dev_info structures. The rest seems to fall back to default_backing_dev_info. With my recent per bdi dirty limit patches the bdi has become more important than it has been in the past. While falling back to the default_backing_dev_info isn't wrong per-se, it isn't right either. Could I implore the various maintainers to look into this issue for their respective filesystem. I'll try and come up with some patches to address this, but feel free to beat me to it. peterz - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/