xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requireme

To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requirements
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:32:09 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080626112612.GW4392@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <1214455277-6387-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1214455277-6387-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080626112612.GW4392@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:26:12AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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?

Different threads doing wait and complete.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>