From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com ([192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5QBVDFq008202 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:31:13 -0700 Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 56AB9182B66E for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.57]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CqiDS4AFf4nvRUsW for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:32:09 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requirements Message-ID: <20080626113209.GK11558@disturbed> References: <1214455277-6387-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1214455277-6387-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20080626112612.GW4392@parisc-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080626112612.GW4392@parisc-linux.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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@fromorbit.com