> On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > I think it's because mark_dirty_buffer doesn't enforce a limit in the
> > grow of dirty buffers in the system.
>
> I think it should be done by the caller: there are cases where you need to
> mark something dirty and you do NOT want to sleep.
>
> Linus
I agree whole heartedly with this sentiment that atomic
mark_buffer_dirty() should be available. My question is: shouldn't the sleeping
be done by refill_freelist? Why not just sleep until bdflush can do its job?
If not, then we should have two mark_buffer_dirty()'s, one atomic, one not, like
we put into the 2.2.11 patch for reiserfs.
We use the non-atomic mark_buffer_dirty for our unformatted node writes. We
would like direction from you vm guys
on which of these solutions to execute on.
By the way, this is the only reiserfs issue keeping our 2.3.12 patch from being
ready for merging into 2.3.
I might also mention that reiserfs journaling is in late alpha, and not much
remains before it is ready for real users.
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.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/