Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:01:27 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [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. Cheers, Al
- 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/
| |