From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:20:40 +0100 (CET) From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? In-Reply-To: <14452.54644.697386.175701@dukat.scot.redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: Hans Reiser , Chris Mason , reiserfs@devlinux.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds List-ID: BTW, I thought Hans was talking about places that can't sleep (because of some not schedule-aware lock) when he said "place that cannot call balance_dirty()". On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: >It shouldn't be impossible: as long as we are protected against >recursive invocations of balance_dirty (which should be easy to I am not sure to understand correctly. In case the ll_rw_block layer produces dirty buffers we are protected by wakeup_bdflush that become a noop when recalled from kflushd (wakeup_bdflush is not blocking to avoid bdflush waiting bdflush :). And in genral balance_dirty should never recurse on the same stack. >arrange) we should be safe enough, at least if the memory reservation >bits of the VM/fs interaction are working so that the balance_dirty >can guarantee to run to completion. Hmm maybe you are talking about something else... 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.nl.linux.org/Linux-MM/