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 cattelan@thebarn.com- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST