From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S131495AbQLQFDu>; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 00:03:50 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S132372AbQLQFDk>; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 00:03:40 -0500
Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:22801 "EHLO
	perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S131495AbQLQFD2>; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 00:03:28 -0500
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 00:38:17 -0200 (BRST)
From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
cc: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
        Russell Cattelan <cattelan@thebarn.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Test12 ll_rw_block error.
In-Reply-To: <20001215105148.E11931@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012170027060.28849-100000@freak.distro.conectiva>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 02:00:19AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds 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.
> > 
> > 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...
> 
> Right.  ext3 and reiserfs just want to submit their own IOs when it
> comes to the journal.  (At least in ext3, already-journaled buffers
> can be written back by the VM freely.)  It's a matter of telling the
> fs when that should start.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> There is a very clean way of doing this with address spaces.  It's
> something I would like to see done properly for 2.5: eliminate all
> knowledge of buffer_heads from the VM layer.  It would be pretty
> simple to remove page->buffers completely and replace it with a
> page->private pointer, owned by whatever address_space controlled the
> page.  Instead of trying to unmap and flush buffers on the page
> directly, these operations would become address_space operations.
> 
> We could still provide the standard try_to_free_buffers() and
> unmap_underlying_metadata() functions to operate on the per-page
> buffer_head lists, and existing filesystems would only have to point
> their address_space "private metadata" operations at the generic
> functions.  However, a filesystem which had additional ordering
> constraints could then intercept the flush or writeback calls from the
> VM and decide on its own how best to honour the VM pressure.

Stephen,

The ->flush() operation (which we've been discussing a bit) would be very
useful now (mainly for XFS).

At page_launder(), we can call ->flush() if the given page has it defined.
Otherwise use try_to_free_buffers() as we do now for filesystems which
dont care about the special flushing treatment. 



-
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/