On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> I did a test. I disabled readahead except for reading all 4 buffers in
> map_4sectors.
>
> I observed 14% slowdown on walking directories with find and 4% slowdown
> on grepping one my working directory (10M, 281 files).
>
> If you can't make it
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:40:47AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > > > @@ -1210,7 +1204,6 @@
> > > [breada()]
> > > Umm... why do we keep it, in the first place? AFAICS the only
> > > in-tree use
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Modulo the comments above - fine with me. However, there is stuff in
> > drivers/md that I don't understand. Ingo, could you comment on the use of
> > ->b_end_io there?
>
> I already sent him mail about it for the same reason.
How about sendi
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Fine
> > - atomic_inc(&bh->b_count);
>
> Why? It's cleaner the old way - why bother postponing that until we
> lock the thing?
I had a rule: we always do the "lock_buffer()" and "b_count increment"
together with setting "b_end_i
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> BTW, what do you think about the following:
> * add_to_page_cache() is not exported and never used. Kill?
I have my eye on that for execute-in-place of romfs from real ROM chips -
making up struct pages for parts of the ROM chips and inserting th
Date:Sat, 9 Dec 2000 00:45:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
out:
-if (nr) {
-ll_rw_block(WRITE, nr, arr);
-} else {
-UnlockPage(page);
-}
+UnlockPage(page);
ClearPageUptodate(page);
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:40:47AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > > @@ -1210,7 +1204,6 @@
> > [breada()]
> > Umm... why do we keep it, in the first place? AFAICS the only
> > in-tree user is hpfs_map_sector() and it doesn't look like we real
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:40:47AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > @@ -1210,7 +1204,6 @@
> [breada()]
> Umm... why do we keep it, in the first place? AFAICS the only
> in-tree user is hpfs_map_sector() and it doesn't look like we really
> need it there. OTOH, trimming the buffer.c down is
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> This is a preliminary patch that I have not compiled and probably breaks,
> but you get the idea. I'm going to sleep, to survive another night with
> three small kids.
>
> If somebody wants to run with this, please try it out, but realize that
> it's
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> This is a preliminary patch that I have not compiled and probably breaks,
> but you get the idea. I'm going to sleep, to survive another night with
> three small kids.
Call me stupid [ Chorus: "You're stupid, Linus" ], but I actually compiled
and b
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Looking more at this issue, I suspect that the easiest pretty solution
> > that everybody can probably agree is reasonable is to either pass down the
> > end-of-io callback to ll_rw_block as you suggested
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Looking more at this issue, I suspect that the easiest pretty solution
> that everybody can probably agree is reasonable is to either pass down the
> end-of-io callback to ll_rw_block as you suggested, or, preferably by just
> forcing the _caller_ to
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> I'm quite aware of that fact ;-) However, you said
>
>On the other hand, I have this suspicion that there is an even simpler
>solution: stop using the end_buffer_io_sync version for writes
>altogether.
>
> If that happens (i.e. if wri
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Erm... So you want to make ->commit_write() page-unlocking? Fine with me,
> > but that will make for somewhat bigger patch. Hey, _you_ are in position
> > to change the locking rules, freeze or
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > [ flush-buffers taking the page lock ]
> >
> > This is great when you have buffersize==pagesize. When there are
> > multiple buffers per page it means that some of the buffers might have
> > to wait for flushing just be
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> [ flush-buffers taking the page lock ]
>
> This is great when you have buffersize==pagesize. When there are
> multiple buffers per page it means that some of the buffers might have
> to wait for flushing just because bdflush started IO on some oth
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Btw, I also think that the dirty buffer flushing should get the page lock.
> Right now it touches the buffer list without holding the lock on the page
> that the buffer is on, which means that there is really nothign that
> prevents it from racing with
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Erm... So you want to make ->commit_write() page-unlocking? Fine with me,
> but that will make for somewhat bigger patch. Hey, _you_ are in position
> to change the locking rules, freeze or not, so if it's OK with you...
No.
Read the code a bit mo
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It's really only __block_prepare_write() that can mark the buffers for
> sync writes, and even that case is fairly bogus: it really only wants to
> mark the non-upto-date buffers that it wants to _read_ for sync IO, it
> just "knows" that it is ok to
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Fix: postpone changing ->b_end_io until the call of ll_rw_block(); if by
> the time of ll_rw_block() some fragments will still have IO in progress -
> wait on them.
>
> Comments?
Yes.
On the other hand, I have this suspicion that there is an even
Folks, see if the following patch helps. AFAICS it closes a pretty real
race - we could call block_write_full_page() for a page that has sync
IO in progress and blindly change ->b_end_io callbacks on the bh with
pending requests. With a little bit of bad luck they would complete before
we got to l
21 matches
Mail list logo
