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

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

>Fine, I was just looking at it from the VFS point of view, not the
>specific filesystem.  In the worst case, a filesystem can always simply
>defer marking the buffer as dirty until after the locking window has
>passed, so there's obviously no fundamental problem with having a
>blocking mark_buffer_dirty.  If we want a non-blocking version too, with
>the requirement that the filesystem then to a manual rebalance once it
>is safe to do so, that will work fine too.

I did the new mark_buffer_dirty blocking and __mark_buffer_dirty
nonblocking while fixing the 2.3.x buffer code.

	ftp://ftp.*.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/patches/v2.3/2.3.36pre5/buffer-2.gz

I am running with above applyed since some day on a based 2.3.36 on Alpha
and all is worked fine so far under all kind of loads.

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/