Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:35:58 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait |
| |
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The second is that bh's are two things: > > - a cacheing object > - an io buffer > > This is not really an clean appropeach, and I would really like to get > away from it.
caching bmap() blocks was a recent addition around 2.3.20, and i suggested some time ago to cache pagecache blocks via explicit entries in struct page. That would be one solution - but it creates overhead.
but there isnt anything wrong with having the bhs around to cache blocks - think of it as a 'cached and recycled IO buffer entry, with the block information cached'.
frankly, my quick (and limited) hack to abuse bhs to cache blocks just cannot be a reason to replace bhs ...
Ingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |