[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Is nobh code still useful?
On Thu 17-09-09 18:11:27, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 09/17/2009 04:56 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > during my page_mkwrite() work, I've looked at who uses nobh_ versions of
> > various functions in fs/buffer.c. It seems only ext2 and jfs use them. ext3
> > uses them only from writepage() (which means we needn't attach buffers to a
> > page when it was written via mmap in writeback mode) and ext4 tries to use
> > them but in fact it's nop because it always attaches buffers to the page
> > earlier. So it's not really widely used, there's quite some code to support
> > it (including one page flag), and it also slightly complicates my
> > page_mkwrite() fixes.
> > So I wanted to ask does somebody actually remember what it is good for?
> > Buffer heads obviously consume some memory so was that the reason? OTOH we
> > have to map the page whenever we write to it or send it to disk via
> > writepage().
> >
> > Honza
> I'm currently using nobh_truncate_page() in fs/exofs/inode.c::exofs_truncate().
> Though, I suspect that once I do the conversion to Nick's:
> "[patch 00/11] new truncate sequence"
> and it is submitted, that use will disappear.
Yeah, actually with page_mkwrite patches I've just sent, this would
definitely go away so this isn't a use I'm too much worried about ;). But
thanks for info anyway.

Jan Kara <>

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-17 17:27    [W:0.076 / U:13.344 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site