Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Jan 2002 19:32:11 -0200 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering. |
| |
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote: > Mark Hahn wrote: > >On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote: > > > >>Write clustering is one thing it achieves. When we flush a slum, the > > > >sure, that's fine. when the VM tells you to write a page, > >you're free to write *more*, but you certainly must give back > >that particular page. afaicr, this was the conclusion > >of the long-ago thread that you're referring to. > > This is bad for use with internal nodes. It simplifies version 4 a > bunch to assume that if a node is in cache, its parent is also. Not > sure what to do about it, maybe we need to copy the node. Surely we > don't want to copy it unless it is a DMA related page cleaning.
DMA isn't a special case, this thing can happen with ANY memory zone.
Unless of course you decide to make reiserfs unsupported for NUMA machines...
regards,
Rik -- "Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |