Hi,
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:05 -0600, Russell Cattelan wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 12:20 +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > >From 4cf1ed8144e740de27c6146c25d5d7ea26679cc5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Steven Whitehouse <[email protected]>
> > Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:21:06 -0500
> > Subject: [PATCH] [GFS2] Tidy up bmap & fix boundary bug
> >
> > This moves the locking for bmap into the bmap function itself
> > rather than using a wrapper function. It also fixes a bug where
> > the boundary flag was set on the wrong bh.
> does boundary buffers even make sense for gfs?
>
Yes.
> They might increase cluster contention, and probably serve to
> just chop up io to the fiber-channel raids/disks that have really
> good caches and queuing algorithms.
>
I've yet to hear of a device that can merge non-contiguous i/o. Read the
comment above fs/mpage.c: mpage_readpages() to see how this scheme
works,
Steve.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
