Re: [BUG] Non-chronological ordering of dirty buffers

From: David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com)
Date: Fri Aug 04 2000 - 06:32:38 EST


   Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:25:42 +0100 (BST)
   From: Mark Hemment <markhe@veritas.com>

     Is it good that dirty superblocks can take so long before they get
   written out?

     What is the correct fix?

Surprisingly you don't even mention as a possible correct fix the one
hinted at by your first question :-)

I can't see any real benefit to the different flushtime settings for
sb vs. non-sb dirty buffers. Just use the same value for both types,
I doubt it really matters at all.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com

-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:12 EST