Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964825AbVLFFnE (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2005 00:43:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964850AbVLFFnD (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2005 00:43:03 -0500 Received: from smtp107.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.169.227]:1902 "HELO smtp107.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964825AbVLFFnC (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2005 00:43:02 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=xlX7pO8CpvzM66om+qzpe/fXkLt+lTbp+Ah9OHr8/Q3l51gxXBeh95XPbTSl7ForbVynkD1f3+ZYRbzVO5zvBo/ys6KKTLbvTIT+3omr7F1DvYrmkfrOYJ4kjBDnpvzX9EvWBbsZSHUFvFIFR0NT6hALO198J7e8q6vrrxWbT5E= ; Message-ID: <439524E2.7050500@yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:42:58 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Trond Myklebust CC: Andrew Morton , theonetruekenny@yahoo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: nfs unhappiness with memory pressure References: <20051205210442.17357.qmail@web34106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1133822367.8003.5.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20051206143641.3feadaea.akpm@osdl.org> <1133844026.8007.36.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> In-Reply-To: <1133844026.8007.36.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1431 Lines: 36 Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 14:36 +1100, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>Trond Myklebust wrote: >> >>>Argh... Not sure entirely how to deal with that... We definitely don't >>> want the thing futzing around inside throttle_vm_writeout(), 'cos >>> writeout isn't going to happen while the socket blocks. >>> >> >>As far as the core VM is concerned, these pages are really "dirty", only it >>happens to be a different flavour of dirtiness. So perhaps we should >>continue to mark these pages as dirty and let NFS internally take care >>of which end of the wire they're dirty at. >> >>Presumably calling writepage() a second time won't be very useful. Or will >>it? Perhaps when NFS sees writepage against a PageDirty && PageUnstable >>page it can recognise that as a hint to kick off a server-side write. > > > Calling writepages() would actually be better. That will do the right > thing, and trigger a commit if there are unstable writes. > writepage should as well, then it would have a better chance of just doing the right thing. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/