[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] [Request for inclusion] Filesystem in Userspace

    On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
    > Will the clients be allowed to fill up the _whole_ memory with dirty
    > pages?

    Sure. It's not a situation that is easy to get into, but it's a nasty

    > Page writeback will start sooner than that, and then the
    > client will not be able to dirty more pages until some are freed.

    Ehh - the _CPU_ handles dirtying pages all on its own. The OS never even
    knows that a page got dirtied, so "starting writeout early" is not much of
    an option.

    We actually had (for a short while) code that tracked the dirty bit in
    software (ie make it unwritable by default, and take the write fault), but
    people showed that that was actually a real performance problem on some

    > BTW, I've never myself seen a deadlock, and I've not had any report of
    > it.

    Almost nobody uses shared writable mappings. Certainly not on "odd"
    things. They are historically used by things like innd for the active
    file, by some odd applications that want to do their own memory
    management, and by databases. That's pretty much it.

    So it's entirely possible that you have never even _seen_ a shared
    writable mapping even if you stressed the filesystem very hard. They
    really are that rare.

    There's a few VM testers out there that do nasty things with writable
    shared mappings. You could try them just for fun, but personally, if we
    are seriously talking about merging FUSE, I'd actually prefer for writable
    mappings to not be supported at all.

    It wouldn't be the only filesystem that doesn't support the thing. I think
    even NFS didn't support them until I did the pagecache rewrite. Nobody
    really complained (well, _very_ few did).

    IOW, from a merging standpoint, simple really _is_ better. Even if you
    really really want to use exotic features like "direct IO" and writable
    mappings some day, let's just put it this way: it's a lot easier to merge
    something that has no questions about strange cases, and then _later_ add
    in the strange cases, than it is to merge it all on day #1.

    I'm a sucker. Ask anybody. I'll accept the exact same patch that I
    rejected earlier if you just do it the right way. I'm convinced that some
    people actually do it on purpose just for the amusement value ("Look, he
    did it _again_. What a doofus!")

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.021 / U:12.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site