| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requirements |
| From: | Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:26:12 -0600 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1214455277-6387-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1214455277-6387-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1214455277-6387-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 02:41:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > XFS object flushing doesn't quite match existing completion semantics. It > mixed exclusive access with completion. That is, we need to mark an object as > being flushed before flushing it to disk, and then block any other attempt to > flush it until the completion occurs. This sounds like mutex semantics. Why are the existing mutexes not appropriate for your needs? -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requirements, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Performance problems with millions of inodes, Christoph Litauer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requirements, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requirements, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |