Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:50:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:50:27 -0500 Received: from thebsh.namesys.com ([212.16.7.65]:51205 "HELO thebsh.namesys.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:50:12 -0500 Message-ID: <3C4DB36F.4090306@namesys.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:46:07 +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: Chris Mason , Andreas Dilger , Shawn Starr , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 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 Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Chris Mason wrote: > >>It seems like the basic features we are suggesting are very close, I'll try >>one last time to make a case against the 'free_some_pages' call ;-) >> > >>The FS doesn't know how long a page has been dirty, or how often it >>gets used, >> > >In an efficient system, the FS will never get to know this, either. > I don't understand this statement. If dereferencing a vfs op for every page aging is too expensive, then ask it to age more than one page at a time. Or do I miss your meaning? > > >The whole idea behind the VFS and the VM is that calls to the FS >are avoided as much as possible, in order to keep the system fast. > In other words, you write the core of our filesystem for us, and we write the parts that don't interest you? Maybe this is the real meat of the issue? 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/