Re: [PATCH] not sleep while holding a locked page in block_truncate_page

From: Linus Torvalds (
Date: Thu Dec 28 2000 - 13:25:30 EST

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> If we call mark_buffer_dirty() on an already dirty buffer, we may sleep
> waiting for bdflush even if we haven't caused _any_ real disk IO (because
> the buffer was already dirty anyway).
> I think it makes more sense if we only call balance_dirty if we actually
> caused real disk IO.
> Would you accept a patch to change that situation by making
> __mark_buffer_dirty return the old dirty bit value and make
> mark_buffer_dirty only sleep on bdflush if we dirtied a clean buffer?

I would actually prefer not having the balance_dirty() in
mark_buffer_dirty() at all, and then just potentially adding an explicit
balance_dirty to strategic places. There would probably not be that many
of those strategic places.

As it stands, this is a bit too subtle for my taste, having people who
sleep without really realizing it, and not necessarily really wanting to
(not for correctness issues, but for latency issues - that superblock lock
can be quite nasty)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 21:00:11 EST