Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 May 2001 23:28:35 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Getting FS access events |
| |
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Richard Gooch wrote: > > However, what about simply invalidating an entry in the buffer cache > when you do a write from the page cache?
And how do you do the invalidate the other way, pray tell?
What happens if you create a buffer cache entry? Does that invalidate the page cache one? Or do you just allow invalidates one way, and not the other? And why=
> Actually, I'd kind of like it if the page cache steals from the buffer > cache on read. The buffer cache is mostly populated by fsck. Once I've > done the fsck, those buffers are useless to me. They might be useful > again if they are steal-able by the page cache.
Ehh.. And then you'll be unhappy _again_, when we early in 2.5.x start using the page cache for block device accesses. Which we _have_ to do if we want to be able to mmap block devices. Which we _do_ want to do (hint: DVD's etc).
Face it. What you ask for is stupid and fundamentally unworkable.
Tell me WHY you are completely ignoring my arguments, when I (a) tell you why your way is bad and stupid (and when you ignore the arguments, don't complain when I call you stupid) and (b) I give you alternate ways to do the same thing, except my suggestion is _faster_ and has none of the downside yours has.
WHY?
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |