[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: test10-pre7

    On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:

    > On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > How about just changing ->sync_page() semantics to own the page lock? That
    > > sound slike the right thing anyway, no?
    > It would kill the ->sync_page(), but yes, _that_ might be the right thing ;-)

    To elaborate: the thing is called if we get a contention on the page lock.
    Essentially, its use in NFS is renice -20 for the requests on our page
    wrt RPC scheduler. By the time when page gets unlocked it becomes a NOP.
    On local filesystems it just runs the tq_disk - nothing in common with
    the NFS case and IMO Trond was wrong lumping them together. In effect,
    we are getting run_task_queue(&tq_disk) executed _very_ often and I'm less
    than sure that it's a good idea. I think that ->sync_page() is not a
    well-defined operation and NFS scheduler should use the locking of its own,
    both for inavlidate_... and here.

    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 12:45    [W:0.037 / U:0.292 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site