On Wednesday June 5, akpm@zip.com.au wrote: > Neil Brown wrote: > > > > ... > > But with ext3 I see different numbers. > > > > Jun 6 12:04:44 elfman kernel: buffer on 5 has age 9511 > > Jun 6 12:04:44 elfman kernel: buffer on 5 has age 9512 > > Jun 6 12:04:44 elfman kernel: buffer on 5 has age 9513 > > ugh. > > I suppose this will fix? Well... it certainly changes the symptom nicely: Jun 6 15:05:07 elfman kernel: buffer on 5 has age 498 Jun 6 15:05:14 elfman kernel: buffer on 5 has age 492 Jun 6 15:05:14 elfman kernel: buffer on 0 has age 420 Jun 6 15:05:19 elfman kernel: buffer on 5 has age 496 Jun 6 15:05:25 elfman kernel: buffer on 5 has age 499 Jun 6 15:05:30 elfman kernel: buffer on 5 has age 493 which is suggestive that it fixes the problem.... But how sure are you that it doesn't introduce another problem???? It's not that I think it will (it looks quite believable to me), but I'm feeling rather fragile about my fileservers at the moment.... I'll probably try it out for real on Wednesday next week. Thanks a lot, NeilBrown - from the Land of the Long Weekend. > > --- 2.4.19-pre10/fs/buffer.c~ext3-flushtime Wed Jun 5 21:39:14 2002 > +++ 2.4.19-pre10-akpm/fs/buffer.c Wed Jun 5 21:39:22 2002 > @@ -1067,6 +1067,8 @@ static void __refile_buffer(struct buffe > bh->b_list = dispose; > if (dispose == BUF_CLEAN) > remove_inode_queue(bh); > + if (dispose == BUF_DIRTY) > + set_buffer_flushtime(bh); > __insert_into_lru_list(bh, dispose); > } > } > --- 2.4.19-pre10/fs/jbd/transaction.c~ext3-flushtime Wed Jun 5 21:39:18 2002 > +++ 2.4.19-pre10-akpm/fs/jbd/transaction.c Wed Jun 5 21:39:22 2002 > @@ -1101,7 +1101,6 @@ int journal_dirty_metadata (handle_t *ha > > spin_lock(&journal_datalist_lock); > set_bit(BH_JBDDirty, &bh->b_state); > - set_buffer_flushtime(bh); > > J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_transaction != NULL);
