lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: PAGE_CACHE_SIZE vs. PAGE_SIZE
From
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:57:25 +0200
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> 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.
>>
>> Is it time to get rid of PAGE_CACHE_* macros?
>> I can prepare patchset if it's okay.
>
> The distinct PAGE_CACHE_SIZE has never been used for anything, but I do
> kinda like it for documentary reasons: PAGE_SIZE is a raw, low-level
> thing and PAGE_CACHE_SIZE is the specialized
> we're-doing-pagecache-stuff thing.
>
> But I'm sure I could get used to not having it ;)

Personally I always find such distinctions without a difference - like
page_cache_release vs put_page - rather confusing, especially when
working near the fs/mm boundary (for example in and under
handle_pte_fault())

--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-19 17:41    [W:0.082 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site