[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100930000641.GA27865@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 02:06:41 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@...arb.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Micha?? Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@...il.com>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
kernel@...ts.fedoraproject.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Dirtiable inode bdi default != sb bdi btrfs
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:38:07AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > No. For one thing we don't need any exception for correctnes alone -
> > even the block device variant would work fine with the default case.
> Here I don't agree. If you don't have some kind of exception, sb->s_bdi
> for both "block" and "mtd_inodefs" filesystems points to
> noop_backing_dev_info and you get no writeback for that one. So it isn't
> just a performance issue but also a correctness one.
Indeed - for internal filesystems that require writeback the change
causes trouble if they haven't registered a s_bdi. But for all user
visible filesystems that doesn't happen as we require s_bdi for
sync or even unmounts to work.
--
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