Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261991AbUD1UAP (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:00:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261205AbUD1T7e (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:59:34 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:24017 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261162AbUD1THv (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:07:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:07:15 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, sgoel01@yahoo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.6-rc{1,2} bad VM/NFS interaction in case of dirty page writeback Message-Id: <20040428120715.68bc51dd.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040428173811.A1505@infradead.org> References: <20040427011237.33342.qmail@web12824.mail.yahoo.com> <20040426191512.69485c42.akpm@osdl.org> <1083035471.3710.65.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20040426205928.58d76dbc.akpm@osdl.org> <1083043386.3710.201.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20040426225834.7035d2c1.akpm@osdl.org> <1083080207.2616.31.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20040428062942.A27705@infradead.org> <1083169062.2856.36.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20040428173811.A1505@infradead.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1134 Lines: 23 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I'm not yet sure where I'm heading with revamping xfs_aops.c, but what > I'd love to see in the end is more or less xfs implementing only > writepages and some generic implement writepage as writepages wrapper. That might make sense. One problem is that writepage expects to be passed a locked page whereas writepages() does not. Any code which implements writearound-inside-writepage should be targetted at a generic implementation, not an fs-specific one if poss. We could go look at the ->vm_writeback() a_op which was in in 2.5.20 or thereabouts. it was causing problems and had no discernable benefits so I ripped it out. A writearound-within-writepage implementation would need to decide whether it's goign to use lock_page() or TryLockPage(). I expect lock_page() will be OK - we only call in there for __GFP_FS allocators. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/