On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 09:09:11AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> We could definitely keep separate dirty ranges for each of the current and
> next transaction. I think the case where you would see a difference would be
> if you had multiple transactions in a row which grew the dirty range for a
>
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 19-06-19 11:21:55, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > Currently both journal_submit_inode_data_buffers() and
> > journal_finish_inode_data_buffers() operate on the entire address space
> > of each of the inodes associated with a given journal
On Wed 19-06-19 11:21:55, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> Currently both journal_submit_inode_data_buffers() and
> journal_finish_inode_data_buffers() operate on the entire address space
> of each of the inodes associated with a given journal entry. The
> consequence of this is that if we have an inode
Currently both journal_submit_inode_data_buffers() and
journal_finish_inode_data_buffers() operate on the entire address space
of each of the inodes associated with a given journal entry. The
consequence of this is that if we have an inode where we are constantly
appending dirty pages we can end
4 matches
Mail list logo
