Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 11/11] writeback: prevent unnecessary bdi threads
 wakeups
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Kristo Tero Tapani <tero.kristo@nokia.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20100722080511.GA9377@amd>
References: <1279704706-1267-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com>
	 <1279704706-1267-12-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com>
	 <20100722031922.GA3446@amd> <1279781304.3044.12.camel@localhost>
	 <20100722080511.GA9377@amd>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:02:19 +0300
Message-ID: <1279785739.3044.33.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1051
Lines: 26

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 18:05 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I can see what you mean, but I think the designs in core code should
> be made as efficient as possible _unless_ there is some complication
> in doing otherwise (not the other way around).
> 
> This is producing 2 unrequired context switches, so I really would
> like to see it done properly. Setting up a timer is really pretty
> simple (or if you would care to implement a delayed process wakeup
> API, I think that would be useful -- I'm surprised there isn't one
> already).

OK, NP, I'll work on this.

The only problem I see is that it will involve more maintainers and
trees (I guess Ingo?), and make it even more difficult for me to reach
upstream :-) But let's try and see!

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

--
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/