On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:09:33 +0100 (CET) Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2012-02-22 21:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:48:08 +0100 (CET)
> >Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
