* [linux-lvm] Question about VFS Locking patch, why is a change needed?
@ 2003-04-18 16:34 Steven Dake
2003-04-21 8:07 ` Chris Mason
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Steven Dake @ 2003-04-18 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Folks,
I was analyzing the VFS locking patch and I wanted to know if someone
could explain the purpose of a change in the reiserfs for me:
The change is:
Index: linus.21/fs/reiserfs/super.c
--- linus.21/fs/reiserfs/super.c Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:14:59 -0500 root
(linux/41_super.c 1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1 644)
+++ linus.21(w)/fs/reiserfs/super.c Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:50:56 -0500 root
(linux/41_super.c 1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1 644)
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
reiserfs_prepare_for_journal(s, SB_BUFFER_WITH_SB(s), 1);
journal_mark_dirty(&th, s, SB_BUFFER_WITH_SB (s));
reiserfs_block_writes(&th) ;
- journal_end(&th, s, 1) ;
+ journal_end_sync(&th, s, 1) ;
}
s->s_dirt = dirty;
unlock_kernel() ;
I tried LVM with and without this change even under heavy load and LVM
can still create mountable snapshots of a reiser filesystem without the
change. Why is it there?
Thanks
-steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Question about VFS Locking patch, why is a change needed?
2003-04-18 16:34 [linux-lvm] Question about VFS Locking patch, why is a change needed? Steven Dake
@ 2003-04-21 8:07 ` Chris Mason
2003-04-22 7:12 ` Steven Dake
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chris Mason @ 2003-04-21 8:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 20:43, Steven Dake wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I was analyzing the VFS locking patch and I wanted to know if someone
> could explain the purpose of a change in the reiserfs for me:
>
> The change is:
> Index: linus.21/fs/reiserfs/super.c
> --- linus.21/fs/reiserfs/super.c Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:14:59 -0500 root
> (linux/41_super.c 1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1 644)
> +++ linus.21(w)/fs/reiserfs/super.c Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:50:56 -0500 root
> (linux/41_super.c 1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1 644)
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
> reiserfs_prepare_for_journal(s, SB_BUFFER_WITH_SB(s), 1);
> journal_mark_dirty(&th, s, SB_BUFFER_WITH_SB (s));
> reiserfs_block_writes(&th) ;
> - journal_end(&th, s, 1) ;
> + journal_end_sync(&th, s, 1) ;
> }
> s->s_dirt = dirty;
> unlock_kernel() ;
>
> I tried LVM with and without this change even under heavy load and LVM
> can still create mountable snapshots of a reiser filesystem without the
> change. Why is it there?
journal_end will do an asynchronous commit, which means it won't wait
for the journal to actually finish writing to disk. journal_end_sync
will wait until the commit is fully on disk.
In most cases, the reiserfs_block_writes call is sufficient and the
journal_end_sync change isn't needed, but there are a few corner cases
depending on the number of log writers where journal_end_sync is
required.
-chris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Question about VFS Locking patch, why is a change needed?
2003-04-21 8:07 ` Chris Mason
@ 2003-04-22 7:12 ` Steven Dake
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Steven Dake @ 2003-04-22 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Chris,
Thanks for the info !
-steve
Chris Mason wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 20:43, Steven Dake wrote:
>
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>I was analyzing the VFS locking patch and I wanted to know if someone
>>could explain the purpose of a change in the reiserfs for me:
>>
>>The change is:
>>Index: linus.21/fs/reiserfs/super.c
>>--- linus.21/fs/reiserfs/super.c Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:14:59 -0500 root
>>(linux/41_super.c 1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1 644)
>>+++ linus.21(w)/fs/reiserfs/super.c Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:50:56 -0500 root
>>(linux/41_super.c 1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1 644)
>>@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
>> reiserfs_prepare_for_journal(s, SB_BUFFER_WITH_SB(s), 1);
>> journal_mark_dirty(&th, s, SB_BUFFER_WITH_SB (s));
>> reiserfs_block_writes(&th) ;
>>- journal_end(&th, s, 1) ;
>>+ journal_end_sync(&th, s, 1) ;
>> }
>> s->s_dirt = dirty;
>> unlock_kernel() ;
>>
>>I tried LVM with and without this change even under heavy load and LVM
>>can still create mountable snapshots of a reiser filesystem without the
>>change. Why is it there?
>>
>>
>
>journal_end will do an asynchronous commit, which means it won't wait
>for the journal to actually finish writing to disk. journal_end_sync
>will wait until the commit is fully on disk.
>
>In most cases, the reiserfs_block_writes call is sufficient and the
>journal_end_sync change isn't needed, but there are a few corner cases
>depending on the number of log writers where journal_end_sync is
>required.
>
>-chris
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>linux-lvm mailing list
>linux-lvm@sistina.com
>http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
>read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
>
>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-04-22 7:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-04-18 16:34 [linux-lvm] Question about VFS Locking patch, why is a change needed? Steven Dake
2003-04-21 8:07 ` Chris Mason
2003-04-22 7:12 ` Steven Dake
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.