"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:32:48 +0300, Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
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()".
You were correct. I think Stephen and I are missing in communicating here.
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.
--Stephen
Yes, but then you have to track what you defer. Code complication.
I just want to leave things as they are until we have time to do SMP right.
When we do SMP right, then a mark_buffer_dirty() which causes schedule is not a
problem. Let's deal with this in 2.5
Hans
--
Get Linux (http://www.kernel.org) plus ReiserFS
(http://devlinux.org/namesys). If you sell an OS or
internet appliance, buy a port of ReiserFS! If you
need customizations and industrial grade support, we sell them.
