Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:12:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:12:33 -0500 Received: from thebsh.namesys.com ([212.16.7.65]:12816 "HELO thebsh.namesys.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:12:23 -0500 Message-ID: <3C4B6A0D.5000006@namesys.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 04:08:29 +0300 From: Hans Reiser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik van Riel CC: Shawn Starr , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering. In-Reply-To: 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 Rik van Riel wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote: > >>Not if you provide a proper design of a master cache manager. >>Really, all you have to do is have the subcache managers designed to >>free the same number of pages on average in response to pressure, and >>to pressure them in proportion to their size, and it is pretty simple >>for VM. >> > >I take it you're volunteering to bring ext3, XFS, JFS, >JFFS2, NFS, the inode & dentry cache and smbfs into >shape so reiserfs won't get unbalanced ? > >regards, > >Rik > If they use writepage(), then the job of balancing cache cleaning is done, we just use writepage as their pressuring mechanism. Any FS that wants to optimize cleaning can implement a VFS method, and any FS that wants to optimize freeing can implement a VFS method, and all others can use their generic VM current mechanisms. Hans - 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/