[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.6-rc{1,2} bad VM/NFS interaction in case of dirty page writeback
Christoph Hellwig <> wrote:
> I'm not yet sure where I'm heading with revamping xfs_aops.c, but what
> I'd love to see in the end is more or less xfs implementing only
> writepages and some generic implement writepage as writepages wrapper.

That might make sense. One problem is that writepage expects to be passed
a locked page whereas writepages() does not.

Any code which implements writearound-inside-writepage should be targetted
at a generic implementation, not an fs-specific one if poss. We could go
look at the ->vm_writeback() a_op which was in in 2.5.20 or thereabouts.
it was causing problems and had no discernable benefits so I ripped it out.

A writearound-within-writepage implementation would need to decide whether
it's goign to use lock_page() or TryLockPage(). I expect lock_page() will
be OK - we only call in there for __GFP_FS allocators.

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: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.056 / U:0.608 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site