[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/14] FS-Cache: Recruit a couple of page flags for cache management
Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:

> Not sure its a good idea to overload page_has_private() with an
> overloadable page-flag. What if some future FS wants to use
> PG_owner_priv_2 for other purposes?

All that it means is that releasepage() and co will get called if a page is to
be released or invalidated that has that bit set. I think that's something a
future FS could probably live with.

However, I do have to trigger a call to releasepage() and co *somehow*.

> Obviously filesystems cannot use these two page-flags if they want to be
> compatible with FS-cache, but need all filesystems be?

What do you mean? That's why I went for the PG_owner_priv_* approach rather
than just naming the bits unto FS-Cache directly.

> (also, ouch! - 2 pageflags)

Yeah. The consequence of having things asynchronous is that you have to find
signalling mechanisms to synchronise around the asynchronicity:-/

Furthermore, it occurs to me that I can't use PG_private or page->private to
store this information because I want to make isofs use caching, and those two
pieces of information are owned by the buffering code.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-01 10:31    [W:0.087 / U:4.080 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site