Hi, On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:05 -0600, Russell Cattelan wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 12:20 +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > > >From 4cf1ed8144e740de27c6146c25d5d7ea26679cc5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Steven Whitehouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:21:06 -0500 > > Subject: [PATCH] [GFS2] Tidy up bmap & fix boundary bug > > > > This moves the locking for bmap into the bmap function itself > > rather than using a wrapper function. It also fixes a bug where > > the boundary flag was set on the wrong bh. > does boundary buffers even make sense for gfs? > Yes.
> They might increase cluster contention, and probably serve to > just chop up io to the fiber-channel raids/disks that have really > good caches and queuing algorithms. > I've yet to hear of a device that can merge non-contiguous i/o. Read the comment above fs/mpage.c: mpage_readpages() to see how this scheme works, Steve. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
