Hello all,
buffer_insert_list puts buffers onto the head of bh->b_inode_buffers,
which means that on fsync we are writing things out in reverse order. I
think we either want this patch, or we want to walk the list in reverse
in fsync_buffers_list
(this has not been well tested, but I can't think of any problems it
would cause)
-chris
--- linux.marcelo/fs/buffer.c Thu Jun 19 09:09:28 2003
+++ linux/fs/buffer.c Thu Jun 19 09:04:17 2003
@@ -591,7 +604,7 @@
if (buffer_attached(bh))
list_del(&bh->b_inode_buffers);
set_buffer_attached(bh);
- list_add(&bh->b_inode_buffers, list);
+ list_add_tail(&bh->b_inode_buffers, list);
spin_unlock(&lru_list_lock);
}
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:15:39AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> buffer_insert_list puts buffers onto the head of bh->b_inode_buffers,
> which means that on fsync we are writing things out in reverse order. I
> think we either want this patch, or we want to walk the list in reverse
> in fsync_buffers_list
>
> (this has not been well tested, but I can't think of any problems it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> would cause)
hi Chris,
We noticed this too and Christoph made this change in the
2.4 XFS tree a little while ago - let me check dates - ah,
9th May. So, fair bit of testing here and we've not seen
any issues from this change either (we'd also like to see
it merged).
thanks.
>
> -chris
>
> --- linux.marcelo/fs/buffer.c Thu Jun 19 09:09:28 2003
> +++ linux/fs/buffer.c Thu Jun 19 09:04:17 2003
> @@ -591,7 +604,7 @@
> if (buffer_attached(bh))
> list_del(&bh->b_inode_buffers);
> set_buffer_attached(bh);
> - list_add(&bh->b_inode_buffers, list);
> + list_add_tail(&bh->b_inode_buffers, list);
> spin_unlock(&lru_list_lock);
> }
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Nathan
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:11:17AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> hi Chris,
>
> We noticed this too and Christoph made this change in the
> 2.4 XFS tree a little while ago - let me check dates - ah,
> 9th May. So, fair bit of testing here and we've not seen
> any issues from this change either (we'd also like to see
> it merged).
It's already in 2.5 for a long time and -ac since the XFS merge, too/