Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Dec 2000 18:54:10 -0600 | From | Russell Cattelan <> | Subject | Re: Test12 ll_rw_block error. |
| |
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > Just one: any fs that really cares about completion callback is very likely > > to be picky about the requests ordering. So sync_buffers() is very unlikely > > to be useful anyway. > > > Somewhat. I guess there are at least two ways to do it. First flush the > buffers where ordering matters (log blocks), then send the others onto the > dirty list (general metadata). You might have your own end_io for those, and > sync_buffers would lose it. > > Second way (reiserfs recently changed to this method) is to do all the > flushing yourself, and remove the need for an end_io call back. > I'm curious about this. Does the mean reiserFS is doing all of it's own buffer management?
This would seem a little redundant with what is already in the kernel?
> > > > In that sense we really don't have anonymous buffers here. I seriously > > suspect that "unrealistic" assumption is not unrealistic at all. I'm > > not sufficiently familiar with XFS code to say for sure, but... > > > > What we really need is a way for VFS/VM to pass the pressure on filesystem. > > That's it. If fs wants unusual completions for requests - let it have its > > own queueing mechanism and submit these requests when it finds that convenient. > > > Yes, this is exactly what we've discussed. > > -chris
-- Russell Cattelan cattelan@thebarn.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |