On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:09:33 +0100 (CET) Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2012-02-22 21:58, Andrew Morton wrote: > > >On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:48:08 +0100 (CET) > >Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> task: provide a larger task command buffer > > > ><scratches head> > > > >Why are we bothering ourselves about this? > > Some prefer to know what's going on in the system. Every other or > so kernel release there are some new happy kthreads, such as > > 24930 ? S 0:00 \_ [btrfs-endio-1] > 24931 ? S 0:00 \_ [btrfs-endio-met] > 24932 ? S 0:00 \_ [btrfs-endio-met] > 24933 ? S 0:00 \_ [btrfs-endio-wri] > 24934 ? S 0:00 \_ [btrfs-freespace] > > at which point one is curious to find out the rest of the met and why > there are two of them. If expanded one actually sees they are different > kthreads (rather than just per-cpu instances for a WQ, for example) > > $ grep Name /proc/{29431,29432}/stat* > /proc/29431/status:Name: btrfs-endio-meta-1 > /proc/29432/status:Name: btrfs-endio-meta-write-1 > > That's all. doh. The fix for that is to have less clueless btrfs developers. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
