> There are two entirely separate jobs being done.
[SNIP]
> That's why we have two daemons. The fact that one
> spends its wait time in user mode and one spends its time in kernel mode
> is irrelevant; even if they were both kernel threads we'd still have two
> separate jobs needing done.
This doesn't mean that all the work couldn't be done by one
thread. I don't see any compelling reasons to have the cost
of 2 threads where one can do the work.
> > I'm crossposting this mail to linux-mm where some clever MM people can
> > be found. Hopefully we can get an explanation why do we still need
> > update.
>
> Because kflushd does not do the job which update needs to do. It does a
> different job.
Since all bdflush/update does is call one system call, wouldn't
the question be better rephrased to this:
"Would it be worth it to let kflushd do bdflush'es work?"
This can be easily accomplished by letting some kernel function
(swap_tick()?) wake up kflushd every <insert sysctl tunable
interval here> seconds and tell it that it would need to do
this specific task (modify struct_bdflush).
Rik.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html