Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] bdi: Create a flag to indicate that a backing device needs stable page writes
From: Boaz Harrosh <hidden>
Date: 2012-11-01 17:25:21
Also in:
linux-fsdevel
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2012-10-30 · Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] bdi: Create a flag to indicate that a backing device needs stable page writes · Boaz Harrosh <hidden>
- 2012-10-30 · Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] bdi: Create a flag to indicate that a backing device needs stable page writes · NeilBrown <hidden>
- 2012-10-30 · Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] bdi: Create a flag to indicate that a backing device needs stable page writes · Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
- 2012-10-30 · Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] bdi: Create a flag to indicate that a backing device needs stable page writes · NeilBrown <hidden>
- 2012-10-30 · Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] bdi: Create a flag to indicate that a backing device needs stable page writes · "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
On 11/01/2012 01:59 AM, Jan Kara wrote: <>
(all block device inodes share one superblock).
Really? that is not so good is it, for other obvious reasons. Why is it not one superblock per BDI? That would be more obvious to me.
Thoughts?
It's a really bad design. I think it is worth fixing. For the above problem, as well as a much better fit with our current thread-per-bdi, and the rest of the Kernel model. No?
Honza
Thanks Boaz