From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] sys_sync livelock fix
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:39:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C69B5D7.CFF9E8EA@zip.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0202122215020.12554-100000@imladris.surriel.com> from "Rik van Riel" at Feb 12, 2002 10:15:38 PM <E16anPg-0003cy-00@the-village.bc.nu>
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > I don't see why it should be different for applications
> > that write data after sync has started.
>
> The guarantee about data written _before_ the sync started is also being
> broken unless I misread the code
That would be very broken.
The theory is: newly dirtied buffers are added at the "new"
end of the LRU. write_some_buffers() starts at the "old"
end of the LRU.
So if write_unlock_buffers writes out the "oldest"
nr_buffers_type[BUF_DIRTY] buffers, then it knows
that it has written out everything which was dirty
at the time it was called.
Or did I miss something?
-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-13 0:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-12 23:13 [patch] sys_sync livelock fix Andrew Morton
2002-02-12 23:31 ` Alan Cox
2002-02-12 23:22 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-13 0:28 ` Alan Cox
2002-02-13 3:28 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-13 3:46 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-13 15:11 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-13 22:24 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-13 22:41 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-02-14 0:26 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-14 0:37 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-14 0:49 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-14 0:53 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-14 1:27 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-14 1:29 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-14 1:59 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-02-14 2:07 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-13 23:31 ` Rob Landley
2002-02-14 0:44 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-12 23:29 ` Rik van Riel
2002-02-13 0:25 ` Alan Cox
2002-02-13 0:15 ` Rik van Riel
2002-02-13 0:36 ` Alan Cox
2002-02-13 0:36 ` Rik van Riel
2002-02-13 0:39 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-02-13 3:42 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-13 3:54 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-13 4:01 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-13 4:53 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-13 15:17 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-13 4:29 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-13 5:21 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-13 5:35 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-18 2:29 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-13 14:09 ` bill davidsen
2002-02-13 15:29 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-13 22:53 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-14 0:33 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-13 1:36 ` What is a livelock? (was: [patch] sys_sync livelock fix) Olaf Dietsche
2002-02-13 1:56 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-13 2:30 ` Olaf Dietsche
2002-02-13 2:39 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-13 16:19 ` Olaf Dietsche
2002-02-13 2:52 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-02-18 22:19 ` David Schwartz
2002-02-13 2:33 ` Rob Landley
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-02-13 9:18 [patch] sys_sync livelock fix Andries.Brouwer
2002-02-14 0:57 Andries.Brouwer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3C69B5D7.CFF9E8EA@zip.com.au \
--to=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox