Re: reiser4: maybe just fix bugs?
From: Vladimir V. Saveliev
Date: Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:36:41 EST
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 20:18 -0600, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >The writeout code is ugly, although that's largely due to a mismatch between
> >what reiser4 wants to do and what the VFS/MM expects it to do.
Yes. reiser4 writeouts atoms. Most of pages get into atoms via
sys_write. But pages dirtied via shared mapping do not. They get into
atoms in reiser4's writepages address space operation. That is why
reiser4_sync_inodes has two steps: on first one it calls
generic_sync_sb_inodes to call writepages for dirty inodes to capture
pages dirtied via shared mapping into atoms. Second step flushes atoms.
> I agree --- both with it being ugly, and that being part of why.
> > If it
> >works, we can live with it, although perhaps the VFS could be made smarter.
> I would be curious regarding any ideas on that. Next time I read
> through that code, I will keep in mind that you are open to making VFS
> changes if it improves things, and I will try to get clever somehow and
> send it by you. Our squalloc code though is I must say the most
> complicated and ugliest piece of code I ever worked on for which every
> cumulative ugliness had a substantive performance advantage requiring us
> to keep it. If you spare yourself from reading that, it is
> understandable to do so.
> >I'd say that resier4's major problem is the lack of xattrs, acls and
> >direct-io. That's likely to significantly limit its vendor uptake.
xattrs is really a problem.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/