Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:27:03 -0500 | From | Phil Auld <> | Subject | Re: Stale super_blocks in 2.2 |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > > > That can be a problem for fiber channel devices. I saw some issues with > > invalidate_buffers and page caching discussed in 2.4 space. Any reasons > > come to mind why I shouldn't call invalidate on the the way down instead > > (or in addition)? > > The I/O completed a few seconds later anyway when bdflush got around to > writing the data back out. I dont plan to change 2.2. 2.4 doesnt do that > optimisation which is annoying in a few cases and a lot less suprising in > others
Sure, the I/O completes, but the buffer_head is still in memory, valid and uptodate. On a subsequent mount the super_block comes from memory not disk. This works as long as nobody else mounted that file system in between.
I can make the changes needed. I was really curious if you, or anyone else, thought there might be page caching issues involved with invalidating on the way down.
Thanks the time,
Phil
------------------------------------------------------ Philip R. Auld,Ph.D. Techinical Staff Egenera Corp. pauld@egenera.com 165 Forest St, Marlboro, MA 01752 (508)786-9444 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |