[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:0.019 / U:1.776 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site