Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:42:58 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: nfs unhappiness with memory pressure |
| |
Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 14:36 +1100, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote: >> >>>Argh... Not sure entirely how to deal with that... We definitely don't >>> want the thing futzing around inside throttle_vm_writeout(), 'cos >>> writeout isn't going to happen while the socket blocks. >>> >> >>As far as the core VM is concerned, these pages are really "dirty", only it >>happens to be a different flavour of dirtiness. So perhaps we should >>continue to mark these pages as dirty and let NFS internally take care >>of which end of the wire they're dirty at. >> >>Presumably calling writepage() a second time won't be very useful. Or will >>it? Perhaps when NFS sees writepage against a PageDirty && PageUnstable >>page it can recognise that as a hint to kick off a server-side write. > > > Calling writepages() would actually be better. That will do the right > thing, and trigger a commit if there are unstable writes. >
writepage should as well, then it would have a better chance of just doing the right thing.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |