On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:21:24PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > The intent was to add some sort of notification mechanism from the file > system to inform the IO scheduler (and others?) that this process is how > holding a file system wide resource. So if you have a low priority > process getting access to such a resource, you want to boost its > priority to avoid higher priority apps getting stuck beind it. Sort of a > poor mans priority inheritance. > > It would be wonderful if you could kick this process more into gear on > the fs side... So what are the calls in lock_super/unlock_super supposed to be for? ->write_super? While that can sync bits out most of the heavy lifting is now done in ->sync_fs for most filesystems. ->remount_fs? This is going to block all other I/O anyway. ->put_super? Surely not :) ext3/4 internal bits? Doesn't seem to be used for any journal related activity but mostly as protection against resizing (the whole lock_super usage in ext3/4 looks odd to me, interestingly there's none at all in ext2. Maybe someone of the extN crowd should audit and get rid of it in favour of a better fs-specific lock) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
