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

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

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 balance_dirty (which should be easy to

I am not sure to understand correctly. In case the ll_rw_block layer
produces dirty buffers we are protected by wakeup_bdflush that become a
noop when recalled from kflushd (wakeup_bdflush is not blocking to avoid
bdflush waiting bdflush :). And in genral balance_dirty should never
recurse on the same stack.

>arrange) we should be safe enough, at least if the memory reservation
>bits of the VM/fs interaction are working so that the balance_dirty
>can guarantee to run to completion.

Hmm maybe you are talking about something else...

Andrea


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.nl.linux.org/Linux-MM/