xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pagebuf page cleaner and page aging

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pagebuf page cleaner and page aging
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:15:17 +0100
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200101191510.f0JFAHs02250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from lord@xxxxxxx on Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 09:10:17AM -0600
References: <marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200101191510.f0JFAHs02250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 09:10:17AM -0600, Steve Lord wrote:
> First, we would really like not to have the daemon in its current state
> at all and use an address space flush operation to trigger the activity
> and drive this out of the vm system directly - from discussions in Miami
> at the storage workshop, the correct way to do this may still involve a
> special daemon for xfs, but it would be handed work by the vm. This would
> also be used for subsequent writes of data (non delayed allocation) which
> currently use buffer heads, I/O clustering could then be applied to those
> writes as well. Getting to this stage would involve abstracting knowledge
> of buffer heads out of the vm and hiding them behind another flush method
> (I think). The flush call would have to be free to flush more or different
> data than it was requested to.

I personally think that we _really_ want to get rid of buffer_heads in mm in
Linux 2.5.  But I think settings the page dirty in prepare/commit_write and
letting writepage do all the dirty work is cleaner and lets us get rid of
most of the buffer cache logic even before buffer_heads are completly gone
(if they will ever be gone ....).

> 
> Pagebuf has a long way to go before it is a completed project, especially
> if kiobufs get the revamp which appears to be on its way!
>

Yes.

        Christoph

-- 
Whip me.  Beat me.  Make me maintain AIX.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>