Re: [patch 1/3] add the fsblock layer

[Nick Piggin]

Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday June 26, nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> > > The block device pagecache isn't special, and certainly isn't that much
> > > code.  I would suggest keeping it buffer head specific and making a
> > > second variant that does only fsblocks.  This is mostly to keep the
> > > semantics of PagePrivate sane, lets not fuzz the line.
> >
> > That would require a new inode and address_space for the fsblock
> > type blockdev pagecache, wouldn't it? I just can't think of a
> > better non-intrusive way of allowing a buffer_head filesystem and
> > an fsblock filesystem to live on the same blkdev together.
>
>
> I don't think they would ever try to.  Both filesystems would bd_claim
> the blkdev, and only one would win.

Hmm OK, I might have confused myself thinking about partitions...

> The issue is more of a filesystem sharing a blockdev with the
> block-special device (i.e. open("/dev/sda1"), read) isn't it?
>
> If a filesystem wants to attach information to the blockdev pagecache
> that is different to what blockdev want to attach, then I think "Yes"
> - a new inode and address space is what it needs to create.
>
> Then you get into consistency issues between the metadata and direct
> blockdevice access.  Do we care about those?

Yeah that issue is definitely a real one. The problem is not just
consistency, but "how do the block device aops even know that the
PG_private page they have has buffer heads or fsblocks", so it is
an oopsable condition rather than just a plain consistency issue
(consistency is already not guaranteed).

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/