[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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

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 12:52    [W:0.087 / U:30.188 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site