Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:04:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:04:05 -0500 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:4101 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:03:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:03:02 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Hans Reiser , Andreas Dilger , Chris Mason , Shawn Starr , , Subject: Re: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering. In-Reply-To: <3C4DB256.172F8D6A@zip.com.au> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > Hans Reiser wrote: > > > > So is there a consensus view that we need 2 calls, one to write a > > particular page, and one to exert memory pressure, and the call to write > > a particular page should only be used when we really need to write that > > particular page? > > Note that writepage() doesn't get used much. Most VM-initiated > filesystem writeback activity is via try_to_release_page(), which > has somewhat more vague and flexible semantics. We may want to change this though, or at the very least get rid of the horrible interplay between ->writepage and try_to_release_page() ... regards, Rik -- "Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.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/