From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:18:34 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [highmem bug report against -test5 and -test6] Re: [PATCH] Re: simple FS application that hangs 2.4-test5, mem mgmt problem or FS buffer cache mgmt problem? (fwd) Message-ID: <20001003001834.A25467@athlon.random> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 07:08:20PM -0300 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , linux-mm@kvack.org, "Stephen C. Tweedie" List-ID: On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 07:08:20PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > Yes it has. The write order in flush_dirty_buffers() is the order > in which the pages were written. This may be different from the > LRU order and could give us slightly better IO performance. And it will forbid us to use barriers in software elevator and in SCSI hardware to avoid having to wait I/O completation every time a journaling fs needs to do ordered writes. The write ordering must remain irrelevant to the page-LRU order. Andrea -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/