> >>>>> "BH" == Bernhard Heidegger <bheide@hyperwave.com> writes:
>
> >>>>> ">" == Zlatko Calusic <Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr> writes:
> >>> Bernhard Heidegger <bheide@hyperwave.com> writes:
> >>> >>>>> ">" == Zlatko Calusic <Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr> writes:
> >>>
> >>> >> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com> writes:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > bdflush yes, but update is not obsolete.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > It is still needed if you want to make sure data (and metadata)
> >>> >> > eventually gets written to disk.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Of course, you can run without update, but then don't bother if you
> >>> >> > lose file in system crash, even if you edited it and saved it few
> >>> >> > hours ago. :)
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Update is very important if you have lots of RAM in your computer.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Oh. I guess my next question then is "why", as why can't this be done
> >>> >> by kflushd as well?
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>> >> To tell you the truth, I'm not sure why, these days.
> >>>
> >>> >> I thought it was done this way (update running in userspace) so to
> >>> >> have control how often buffers get flushed. But, I believe bdflush
> >>> >> program had this functionality, and it is long gone (as you correctly
> >>> >> noticed).
> >>>
> >>> IMHO, update/bdflush (in user space) calls sys_bdflush regularly. This
> >>> function (fs/buffer.c) calls sync_old_buffers() which itself sync_supers
> >>> and sync_inodes before it goes through the dirty buffer lust (to write
> >>> some dirty buffers); the kflushd only writes some dirty buffers dependent
> >>> on the sysctl parameters.
> >>> If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me!
> >>>
>
> >>> You are not wrong.
>
> >>> Update flushes metadata blocks every 5 seconds, and data block every
> >>> 30 seconds.
>
> BH> My version of update (something around Slakware 3.4) does the following:
> BH> 1.) calls bdflush(1,0) (fs/buffer.c:sys_bdflush) which will call
> BH> sync_old_buffers() and return
> BH> 2.) only if the bdflush(1,0) fails (it returns < 0) it returns to the
> BH> old behavior of sync()ing every 30 seconds
>
> BH> But case 2) should only happen on really old kernels; on newer kernels
> BH> (I'm using 2.0.34) the bdflush() should never fail.
>
> BH> But as I told, sync_old_buffers() do:
> BH> 1.) sync_supers(0)
> BH> 2.) sync_inodes(0)
> BH> 3.) go through dirty buffer list and may flush some buffers
>
> BH> Conclusion: the meta data get synced every 5 seconds and some buffers may
> BH> be flushed.
>
> >>> Questions is why can't this functionality be integrated in the kernel,
> >>> so we don't have to run yet another daemon?
>
> We can do this in kernel thread but I don't see the win.
>
One daemon less to run.
This should be enough.
You have one less process running, you free some memory, and make
things slightly cleaner.
Not a big win, but small things make people happy. :)
--
Posted by Zlatko Calusic E-mail: <Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Linux, WinNT and MS-DOS. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html