On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Greg Freemyer wrote: > I saw a thread about disk i/o that may relate. At least with disk > buffers in the block layer, it appeared it was an all or nothing > situation for flushing the queues. So if a upper level wanted to > ensure write A completed prior to write B, the only option was: > > - write A (places data in the block queue) > - flush buffers and write all data in the block queue regardless of source > - write B (places data in the block queue) > > I gathered that several of the people in the thread were surprised > at the lack of granularity, but no better solution was offered, nor > even proposed for the future. > > Thus, I "assume" the calls you see in the block i/o stack are truly needed. i'm still not convinced of the logic here. i can see that while one can create one's own workqueue, there is a single kernel-wide work queue that you can take advantage of. but is that single kernel-wide WQ meant for things that are really important? or really trivial? and if some kernel subsystem truly needs a work queue, wouldn't it make sense to create its own? whoops, hang on, it appears that flush_scheduled_work() has been deprecated for a while: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=flush_scheduled_work%20deprecated&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=7ac18a866ba087&bpcl=35466521&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&biw=1018&bih=912 it just hasn't gone away yet. i will read further ... rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ======================================================================== _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
