Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Russell Cattelan wrote:
> >
> > Ok one more wrinkle.
> > sync_buffers calls ll_rw_block, this is going to have the same problem as
> > calling ll_rw_block directly.
>
> Good point.
>
> This actually looks fairly nasty to fix. The obvious fix would be to not
> put such buffers on the dirty list at all, and instead rely on the VM
> layer calling "writepage()" when it wants to push out the pages.
> That would be the nice behaviour from a VM standpoint.
>
> However, that assumes that you don't have any "anonymous" buffers, which
> is probably an unrealistic assumption.
>
> The problem is that we don't have any per-buffer "writebuffer()" function,
> the way we have them per-page. It was never needed for any of the normal
> filesystems, and XFS just happened to be able to take advantage of the
> b_end_io behaviour.
>
> Suggestions welcome.
>
> Linus
Ok after a bit of trial and error I do have something working.
I wouldn't call it the most elegant solution but it does work
and it isn't very intrusive.
#define BH_End_io 7 /* End io function defined don't remap it */
/* don't change the callback if somebody explicitly set it */
if(!test_bit(BH_End_io, &bh->b_state)){
bh->b_end_io = end_buffer_io_sync;
}
What I've done is in the XFS set buffer_head setup functions is
set the initial value of b_state to BH_Locked and BH_End_io
set the callback function and the rest of the relevant fields and then unlock
the
buffer.
The only other quick fix that comes to mind is to change sync_buffers to use
submit_bh rather than ll_rw_block.
-- Russell Cattelan cattelan@thebarn.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST