From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:46:01 +0100 (CET) From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? In-Reply-To: <14453.54081.644647.363133@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: On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: >Fine, I was just looking at it from the VFS point of view, not the >specific filesystem. In the worst case, a filesystem can always simply >defer marking the buffer as dirty until after the locking window has >passed, so there's obviously no fundamental problem with having a >blocking mark_buffer_dirty. If we want a non-blocking version too, with >the requirement that the filesystem then to a manual rebalance once it >is safe to do so, that will work fine too. I did the new mark_buffer_dirty blocking and __mark_buffer_dirty nonblocking while fixing the 2.3.x buffer code. ftp://ftp.*.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/patches/v2.3/2.3.36pre5/buffer-2.gz I am running with above applyed since some day on a based 2.3.36 on Alpha and all is worked fine so far under all kind of loads. 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/