Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:32:36 +0800 | From | Simon Jeons <> | Subject | Re: PAGE_CACHE_SIZE vs. PAGE_SIZE |
| |
On 01/18/2013 11:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > Hi, > > PAGE_CACHE_* macros were introduced long time ago in hope to implement > page cache with larger chunks than one page in future. > > In fact it was never done. > > Some code paths assume PAGE_CACHE_SIZE <= PAGE_SIZE. E.g. we use > zero_user_segments() to clear stale parts of page on cache filling, but > the function is implemented only for individual small page. > > It's unlikely that global switch to PAGE_CACHE_SIZE > PAGE_SIZE will never > happen since it will affect to much code at once. > > I think support of larger chunks in page cache can be in implemented in > some form of THP with per-fs enabling.
IIRC, you try to implement THP support page cache, then PAGE_CACHE_SIZE maybe don't need any more.
> > Is it time to get rid of PAGE_CACHE_* macros? > I can prepare patchset if it's okay. >
| |