[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903261855590.18132@blonde.anvils>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:00:10 +0000 (GMT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
cc: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, David Rees <drees76@...il.com>,
Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26 2009, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > So, directing a barrier (WRITE_BARRIER or DISCARD_BARRIER) to a range
> > of sectors in one partition interposes a barrier into the queue of I/O
> > across (all partitions of) that whole device.
>
> Correct
>
> > I think that's not how filesystems really want barriers to behave,
> > and might tend to discourage us from using barriers more freely.
> > But I have zero appreciation of whether it's a significant issue
> > worth non-trivial change - just wanted to get it out into the open.
>
> Per-partition definitely makes sense. The problem is that we do sorting
> on a per-device basis right now. But it's a good point, I'll try and
> take a look at how much work it would be to make it per-partition
> instead. It wont be trivial :-)
Thanks, that would be interesting.
Trivial bores you anyway, doesn't it?
Hugh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists