From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <400459376.04290@ustc.edu.cn> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:07 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: [patch] Converting writeback linked lists to a tree based data structure References: <20080115080921.70E3810653@localhost> <1200386774.15103.20.camel@twins> <532480950801150953g5a25f041ge1ad4eeb1b9bc04b@mail.gmail.com> <400452490.28636@ustc.edu.cn> <20080115194415.64ba95f2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <400457571.32162@ustc.edu.cn> <20080115204236.6349ac48.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080115204236.6349ac48.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-Id: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Michael Rubin , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:42:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:25:53 +0800 Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > list_heads are OK if we use them for one and only function. > > Not really. They're inappropriate when you wish to remember your > position in the list while you dropped the lock (as we must do in > writeback). > > A data structure which permits us to interate across the search key rather > than across the actual storage locations is more appropriate. I totally agree with you. What I mean is to first do the split of functions - into three: ordering, starvation prevention, and blockade waiting. Then to do better ordering by adopting radix tree(or rbtree if radix tree is not enough), and lastly get rid of the list_heads to avoid locking. Does it sound like a good path? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org