On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 03:43:05PM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
On the 28.07.2010 21:58, I wrote:
At the 28.07.2010 17:21, you (doiggl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
The following items are still unaddressed:
1. running igrab() in the writepage() path is really going to hammer
inode_lock. Something else will need to be done here.
2. Running iput() in entd() is a bit surprising. iirc there
in which this can recur into the filesystem, perform I/O, etc. I
But again, it will hammer inode_lock.
inode_lock should be going away within 6 months or so, with the
vfs-scaling developments (see linux-fsdevel).
Inode refcounting becomes very light-weight, as it should be.
3. the writeout logic in entd_flush() is interesting (as inwhat's
It's very central and really needs some good comments describing
going on in there - what problems are being solved, which decisionswere
taken and why, etc.of
4. reiser4_wait_page_writeback() needs commenting.
5. reading the comment in txnmgr.c regarding MAP_SHARED pages: a number
things have changed since then. We have page-becoming-writeable
notifications and probably soon we'll always take a
pagefault when a
MAP_SHARED page transitions from pte-clean to pte-dirty (although I
recommend that a filesystem rely upon the latter for a while yet).
It is now possible to trap all dirtying activity from all sources
except get_user_pages (but filesystems tend to ignore that little