On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 05:12:56PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 25-08-20 10:10:20, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > (Adding the OCFS2 maintainers, since my possibly insane idea proposed > > below would definitely impact them!) > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 01:16:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 02:05:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > Discarding blocks and buffers under a mounted filesystem is hardly > > > > anything admin wants to do. Usually it will confuse the filesystem and > > > > sometimes the loss of buffer_head state (including b_private field) can > > > > even cause crashes like: > > > > > > Doesn't work if the file system uses multiple devices. I think we > > > just really need to split the fs buffer_head address space from the > > > block device one. Everything else is just going to cause a huge mess. > > > > I wonder if we should go a step further, and stop using struct > > buffer_head altogether in jbd2 and ext4 (as well as ocfs2). > > What about the cache coherency issues I've pointed out in my reply to > Christoph? If journal_heads pointed into the page cache as well, then you'd get coherency. These new journal heads would have to be able to cope with the page cache being modified underneath them, of course.
