[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: kernel BUG at buffer.c:827 in test12-pre6 and 7

    On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > [ flush-buffers taking the page lock ]
    > This is great when you have buffersize==pagesize. When there are
    > multiple buffers per page it means that some of the buffers might have
    > to wait for flushing just because bdflush started IO on some other
    > buffer on the same page. Oh well. The common case improves in terms
    > being proveably correct and the uncommon case gets worse a tiny bit.
    > It sounds like a win.

    Also, I think that we should strive for a setup where most of the dirty
    buffer flushing is done through "page_launder()" instead of using
    sync_buffers all that much at all.

    I'm convinced that the page LRU list is as least as good as, if not better
    than, the dirty buffer timestamp stuff. And as we need to have the page
    LRU for other reasons anyway, I'd like the long-range plan to be to get
    rid of the buffer LRU completely. It wastes memory and increases
    complexity for very little gain, I think.


    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 12:51    [W:0.019 / U:31.328 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site