[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Design problems caused by bdflush

On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:32:37 +0000, Jamie Lokier <> said:

> A possibly simple change would be another buffer state: "dependent
> dirty". Unlike dirty buffers they are not flushed and they're not on
> the dirty list; instead, they are linked to from an ordinary dirty
> buffer.

> After an ordinary dirty buffer is written or flushed, its "dependent
> dirty" buffers are changed to "dirty" and they will eventually be
> written too. Thus you get a partial write ordering.

We've talked about this sort of thing in the past. Linus is quite
interested in the possibility of adding write ordering for pending
writes or to the writeback queues, but really wants the buffer cache to
lose, not add, functionality. Adding more complexity to the buffer
cache for cases like this just isn't going to be accepted.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.083 / U:3.084 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site