From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix reiserfs latencies caused by data=ordered Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 16:01:22 -0700 Message-ID: <20060804160122.76d95426.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060804140708.GF1134@watt.suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: reiserfs-dev@namesys.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:35984 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161417AbWHDXB3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:01:29 -0400 To: Chris Mason In-Reply-To: <20060804140708.GF1134@watt.suse.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:07:08 -0400 Chris Mason wrote: > ReiserFS does periodic cleanup of old transactions in order to limit the > length of time a journal replay may take after a crash. Sometimes, writing > metadata from an old (already committed) transaction may require committing > a newer transaction, which also requires writing all data=ordered buffers. > This can cause very long stalls on journal_begin. > > This patch makes sure new transactions will not need to be committed before > trying a periodic reclaim of an old transaction. It is low risk because > if a bad decision is made, it just means a slightly longer journal > replay after a crash. So I'm thinking that these: i_mutex-does-not-need-to-be-locked-in-reiserfs_delete_inode.patch fix-reiserfs-lock-inversion-of-bkl-vs-inode-semaphore.patch (akpm modified) reiserfs_write_full_page-should-not-get_block-past-eof.patch are 2.6.18 material. What are your thoughts on that?