[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Problem in log_do_checkpoint()?

On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 12:36, Jan Kara wrote:

> > The prevention of multiple writes in this case should also improve
> > performance a little.
> >
> > That ought to be pretty straightforward, I think. The existing cases
> > where we remove buffers from a checkpoint shouldn't have to care about
> > which list_head we're removing from; those cases already handle buffers
> > in both states. It's only when doing the flush/wait that we have to
> > distinguish the two.
> Yes, AFAICS the changes should remain local to the checkpointing code
> (plus __unlink_buffer()). Should I write the patch or will you?

Feel free, but please let me know if you start. I'm doing a bit of
chasing of leaks and dealing with that O_SYNC thing for 2.4 right now,
but I'll get back to the checkpoint code after that if you haven't
started by then.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-12 16:48    [W:0.037 / U:38.660 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site