[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1291075500-sup-6320@think>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:50:46 -0500
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [patch] fs: fix deadlocks in writeback_if_idle
Excerpts from Andrew Morton's message of 2010-11-24 17:47:40 -0500:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 07:34:07 -0500
> Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > For btrfs there's only one bdi per SB, but for most everyone else a disk
> > with a bunch of partitions is going to have multiple filesystems on the
> > same bdi.
>
> um, please explain why that wasn't idiotic? The BDI is a
> representation of a backing device and it's *supposed* to provide
> visibility into what's happening against other partitions on the same
> device. Creating a BDI per SB (it didn't even occur to me to think
> that a filesystem was even able to do this) breaks that.
>
We don't really have visibility into the other partitions, we all just
pretend they aren't there (this patch being the most recent example).
Yes, it does help prevent N flushers seeking around on the drive but it
does cause problems too.
How is the btrfs one-bdi-per-super different from device mapper's one
bdi per logical volume? We're all idiots together I suppose.
As for having multiple bdis per FS, that was always a long term goal of
mine when Jens was setting up the new flushers. I didn't want to
confuse the initial implementation with it though.
-chris
--
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