[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081007133651.GA19895@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:36:51 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve buffered streaming write ordering
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:29:11AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> That's true, but there is a lot of code duplication, which means that
> bugs or changes in write_cache_pages() would need to be fixed in
> ext4_write_cache_pages(). So another approach that might be better
> from a long-term code maintenance point of view is to add a flag in
> struct writeback_control that tells write_cache_pages() not to update
> those fields, and avoid duplicating approximately 95 lines of code.
> It means a change in a core mm function, though, so if folks thinks
> its too ugly, we can make our own copy in fs/ext4.
>
> Opinions? Andrew, as someone who often weighs in on fs and mm issues,
> what do you think? My preference would be to make the change to
> mm/page-writeback.c, controlled by a flag which ext4 would set be set
> by fs/ext4 before it calls write_cache_pages().
I agree. But I'm still not quite sure if that requirement is unique to
ext4 anyway. Give me some time to dive into the writeback code again,
haven't been there for quite a while.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists