"Paul Clements wrote:" > "Peter T. Breuer" wrote: > > "Paul Clements wrote:" > > We cannot account for how many bits are really dirty in this chunk. > > That's OK, we don't need to know. We really just want to know if there > are any outstanding writes for that chunk. We increment the chunk OK. That's a fine semantics. > So we really don't care how many blocks are dirty, just that there are > or are not dirty blocks in the chunk. Does that make sense? Well, yes. We would have tried to mark the bitmap before each write, and I suppose we would have failed for out of memory in creating the bitmap page, and now you are saying that OK, so let's just count outstanding writes to thæt bitmap zone. I suppose that if the write fails we don't decrement the count? Otherwise we do? So when we do a mark we increment the count on the bitmap zone, and when we do a clear we decrement the count, and when the write fails we never try and clear on the bitmap? Then what we have is a count of the unbalance between marks and clears on the bitmap per zone. And you want the Yes, I can go with that. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
