Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

2000-01-07 Thread Hans Reiser
"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 > >>

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

2000-01-07 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
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 fundame

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

2000-01-07 Thread Stephen C. Tweedie
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

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? (resendingbecause my

2000-01-07 Thread Stephen C. Tweedie
Hi, On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:25:38 -0500 (EST), "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > AIX has such an API already. It is good to clone if you can. The AIX API is much more than a simple small-operation atomic transaction API, isn't it? The filesystem transactions have many properties --

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? (resendingbecause my

2000-01-06 Thread Albert D. Cahalan
Hans Reiser writes: > Yes, but not before 2.5. Chris and I have already discussed that > it would be nice to make the transaction API available to user space, > but we haven't done any work on it, or even specified the user API. AIX has such an API already. It is good to clone if you can. This

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

2000-01-06 Thread Hans Reiser
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. -- Get Linux (http://www.kern

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

2000-01-06 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
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

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

2000-01-06 Thread Stephen C. Tweedie
Hi, On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 06:41:44 +0800, Tan Pong Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I was thinking that, unless you want to have FS specific buffer/page > cache, there is alway a gain for a unified cache for all fs. I think > the one piece of functionality missing from the 2.3 implementation > is

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

2000-01-06 Thread Stephen C. Tweedie
Hi, On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:37:48 +0300, Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> > I completly agree to change mark_buffer_dirty() to call balance_dirty() >> > before returning. > How can we use a mark_buffer_dirty that calls balance_dirty in a > place where we cannot call balance_dirty? It sh

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? (resending because my ISP probably lost it)

2000-01-06 Thread Hans Reiser
Tigran Aivazian wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Peter J. Braam wrote: > > I think I mean joining. What I need is: > > > > braam starts trans > >does A > >calls reiser: hans starts > >does B > >hans commits; nothing goes to disk yet > >braam does C > > braam commits/aborts ABC n

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? (resendingbecause my ISP probably lost it)

2000-01-06 Thread Hans Reiser
Yes, but not before 2.5. Chris and I have already discussed that it would be nice to make the transaction API available to user space, but we haven't done any work on it, or even specified the user API. We probably won't even start work on it for 6 months (unless a sponsor asks for it). We do t

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? (resending becausemy ISP probably lost it)

2000-01-05 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Peter J. Braam wrote: > I think I mean joining. What I need is: > > braam starts trans >does A >calls reiser: hans starts >does B >hans commits; nothing goes to disk yet >braam does C > braam commits/aborts ABC now go or don't > > Reiserfs won't do

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? (resending because my ISP probably lost it)

2000-01-05 Thread Tigran Aivazian
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Peter J. Braam wrote: > I think I mean joining. What I need is: > > braam starts trans >does A >calls reiser: hans starts >does B >hans commits; nothing goes to disk yet >braam does C > braam commits/aborts ABC now go or don't no, that definitely looks

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? (resendingbecause my ISP probably lost it)

2000-01-05 Thread Peter J. Braam
I think I mean joining. What I need is: braam starts trans does A calls reiser: hans starts does B hans commits; nothing goes to disk yet braam does C braam commits/aborts ABC now go or don't - Peter - On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Hans Reiser wrote: > Is nesting really the term you

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? (resending old email lost by (former) ISP)

2000-01-05 Thread Hans Reiser
Erez Zadok wrote: > > Hans and linux-fsdevel folks: I have a proposal. How would you all feel > forming an informal group that would report changes relevant to f/s > developers on this list. (Maybe even a different mailing list?) I think that sending emails summarizing changes to the kernel ot

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? (resending because my ISP probably lost it)

2000-01-05 Thread Hans Reiser
Is nesting really the term you mean to use here, or is joining the term you mean? Do you really mean transactions within other transactions? Exactly what functionality do you need? Hans "Peter J. Braam" wrote: > Hi, > > I have one request for the journal API for use by network file systems -

Re: kernel change logs (was Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?)

1999-12-26 Thread Tigran Aivazian
Hi guys, Although I received a few nice replies privately, I think it makes sense to clarify what I meant when I said "Jeff's comments irritate me". I meant that we should put a lot more work into writing kernel commentaries like the excellent one started by Neil Brown on VFS and nfsd already (d

Re: kernel change logs (was Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?)

1999-12-26 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Garzik writes: > [...] > To sum, documenting changes is a very good idea, notifying specific > hackers of specific kernel changes is a waste of time [unless they > are the maintainers of the code being changed, of course]. I agree that notifying individuals

kernel change logs (was Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?)

1999-12-26 Thread Jeff Garzik
(copied to linux-kernel) On Sun, 26 Dec 1999, Erez Zadok wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Jeff Garzik writes: > > On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Hans Reiser wrote: > > > All I'm going to ask is that if mark_buffer_dirty gets changed again, > > > whoever changes it please let us know this time...

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-26 Thread feiliu
May I ask why the time is O(N*Log(N)) instead of O(Log(N)). We have this interesting OS class implementing a AVL tree structured directory entry in ext2 directory file on disk. I always think it is not going to work out. But the TA and the professor keep telling me the new file system will be bett

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-26 Thread Erez Zadok
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Garzik writes: > On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Hans Reiser wrote: > > All I'm going to ask is that if mark_buffer_dirty gets changed again, > > whoever changes it please let us know this time. The last two times > > it was changed we weren't informed, and the fir

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-24 Thread afei
May I ask why the time is O(N*Log(N)) instead of O(Log(N)). We have this interesting OS class implementing a AVL tree structured directory entry in ext2 directory file on disk. I always think it is not going to work out. But the TA and the professor keep telling me the new file system will be bett

[OT] Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-24 Thread Tigran Aivazian
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Can't you figure this sort of thing out on your own? .. > And grep'ing patches ain't that hard Jeff, with all respect to your great kernel hacking talents - these sort of comments really irritate me. Most (I assume) kernel hackers have full-time jobs

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-23 Thread Jeff Garzik
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Hans Reiser wrote: > All I'm going to ask is that if mark_buffer_dirty gets changed again, whoever > changes it please let us know this time. The last two times it was changed > we weren't informed, and the first time it happened it took a long time to > figure it out. C

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-23 Thread Hans Reiser
All I'm going to ask is that if mark_buffer_dirty gets changed again, whoever changes it please let us know this time. The last two times it was changed we weren't informed, and the first time it happened it took a long time to figure it out. I think that whether we make __mark_buffer_dirty

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-23 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Hans Reiser wrote: >If reiserfs had good SMP, you could stall it anywhere, and the code >could handle that. But we don't, and I bet others also don't, and we >won't have it for some time even though we are working on it. I completly understand that we need also an atomic ma

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-23 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, William J. Earl wrote: >in the extent. If the page cache were indexed by a per-inode AVL tree Some month ago I did some research in putting the pagecache into a per-inode RB-tree. AVL would be overkill because insert/removal can be the only operation done on the tree (with

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-23 Thread Hans Reiser
"Benjamin C.R. LaHaise" wrote: > I completly agree to change mark_buffer_dirty() to call balance_dirty() > > before returning. But if you add the balance_dirty() calls all over the > > right places all should be _just_ fine as far I can tell. > > I don't agree, both for the reasons above and bec

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-23 Thread Hans Reiser
Stephen's remarks seem right to me. 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.

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-23 Thread William J. Earl
Tan Pong Heng writes: ... > I was thinking that, unless you want to have FS specific buffer/page cache, > there is alway a gain for a unified cache for all fs. I think the one piece > of functionality missing from the 2.3 implementation is the dependency > between the various pages. If you cou

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-22 Thread Hans Reiser
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:18:03 +0100 (CET), Andrea Arcangeli > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > >> refile_buffer() checks in buffer.c. Ideally there should be a > >> system-wide upper bound on dirty data: if each

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-22 Thread Tan Pong Heng
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:21:05 -0500 (EST), "Benjamin C.R. LaHaise" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > The buffer dirty lists are the wrong place to be dealing with this. We > > need a lightweight, fast way of monitoring the system's dirty buffer/page > > thres

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-21 Thread Stephen C. Tweedie
Hi, On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:57:29 +0100 (CET), Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > So you are talking about replacing this line: > dirty = size_buffers_type[BUF_DIRTY] >> PAGE_SHIFT; > with: > dirty = (size_buffers_type[BUF_DIRTY]+size_buffers_type[BUF_PINNED]) >> >PAGE_SHIF

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-21 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: >We cannot use the buffer.c dirty list anyway because bdflush can write >those buffers to disk at any time. Transactions have to control the So you are talking about replacing this line: dirty = size_buffers_type[BUF_DIRTY] >> PAGE_SHIFT;

Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

1999-12-21 Thread Stephen C. Tweedie
Hi, On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:18:03 +0100 (CET), Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: >> refile_buffer() checks in buffer.c. Ideally there should be a >> system-wide upper bound on dirty data: if each different filesystem >> starts to throttle