[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:0.020 / U:181.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site