Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946367AbXBCGlA (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 01:41:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946365AbXBCGk7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 01:40:59 -0500 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:60879 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946362AbXBCGk6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 01:40:58 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:13:45 +0530 From: Suparna Bhattacharya To: Andrew Morton Cc: Nick Piggin , Linux Kernel , Linux Filesystems , Linux Memory Management , Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] buffered write deadlock fix Message-ID: <20070203064345.GA22331@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: suparna@in.ibm.com References: <20070129081905.23584.97878.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20070202155232.babe1a52.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070202155232.babe1a52.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2175 Lines: 54 On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 03:52:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:31:37 +0100 (CET) > Nick Piggin wrote: > > > The following set of patches attempt to fix the buffered write > > locking problems (and there are a couple of peripheral patches > > and cleanups there too). > > > > Patches against 2.6.20-rc6. I was hoping that 2.6.20-rc6-mm2 would > > be an easier diff with the fsaio patches gone, but the readahead > > rewrite clashes badly :( > > Well fsaio is restored, but there's now considerable doubt over it due to > the recent febril febrility. I think Ingo made a point earlier about letting the old co-exist with the new. Fibrils + kevents have great potential for a next generation solution but we need to give the whole story some time to play out and prove it in practice, debate and benchmark the alternative combinations, optimize it for various workloads etc. It will also take more work on top before we can get the whole POSIX AIO implementation supported on top of this. I'll be very happy when that happens ... it is just that it is still too early to be sure. Since this is going to be a new interface, not the existing linux AIO interface, I do not see any conflict between the two. Samba4 already uses fsaio, and we now have the ability to do POSIX AIO over kernel AIO (which depends on fsaio). The more we delay real world usage the longer we take to learn about the application patterns that matter. And it is those patterns that are key. > > How bad is the clash with the readahead patches? > > Clashes with git-block are likely, too. > > Bugfixes come first, so I will drop readahead and fsaio and git-block to get > this work completed if needed - please work agaisnt mainline. If you need help with fixing the clashes, please let me know. Regards Suparna -- Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@in.ibm.com) Linux Technology Center IBM Software Lab, India - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/