From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix reiserfs latencies caused by data=ordered Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:20:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20060807122021.GC19634@watt.suse.com> References: <20060804140708.GF1134@watt.suse.com> <20060804160122.76d95426.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: reiserfs-dev@namesys.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44746 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932073AbWHGMUo (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:20:44 -0400 To: Andrew Morton Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060804160122.76d95426.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 04:01:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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? Ack from me. -chris