[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Soft-Updates for Linux ?
    Rik van Riel wrote:
    > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, bert hubert wrote:
    > >
    > > If Rik gets some kind of memory pressure callback API in the
    > > kernel, there is no theoretical reasons why the journalling
    > > filesystems couldn't be merged safely.
    > Once the VM is stable with the current feature set and OOM
    > handling has been added, I'll probably look at the support
    > code for the journaling filesystems.

    What I've seen proposed is a mechanism where the VM can say 'flush this
    page' to a filesystem and the filesystem can then go ahead and do what
    it wants, including flushing the page, flushing some other page, or not
    doing anything and just being part of the problem. I'm having trouble
    seeing that as a clear way for the VM to communicate what it wants. Why
    is it interested in *that* page in particular? What should we read into
    its interest in a particular page? That the page looks stale? If that
    page can't be written just now, this mechanism provides no help in
    finding a suitable substitute.

    Instead of calling the filesystem repeatedly, how about just telling it
    the bad news: the amount of cache the VM thinks the filesystem should be
    using for a particular superblock, and perhaps the amount the VM thinks
    the filesystem is using now. This wouldn't need to be a function call
    at all. The only reason you need a function call is to wake up the
    filesystem so it can take action.

    Passing in the target page seems to be an attempt at communicating some
    of the LRU information that the VM maintains. If so, this is a very
    low-bandwidth way of doing that. I have to admit I haven't studied the
    VM the way I should, I'm still trying to preserve the fiction that one
    can write a filesystem without getting involved in the memory manager.
    But here is a half-baked idea: how about exporting the page aging
    mechanism so a filesystem can age its own pages.

    These are half-formed ideas, I just want to make it clear that the
    one-page-at-a-time memory pressure callback seems a little unsatisfying.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.024 / U:0.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site