On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
> It is enough to leave buffer heads we don't flush on the dirty list (and
> redirty the page), they'll get written by a future loop through
> flush_dirty_pages, or by page_launder. We could use ll_rw_block instead,
> even though anon pages do have a writepage with this patch (just check if
> page->mapping == &anon_space_mapping).
If we use ll_rw_block directly on buffers of anonymous pages
(page->mapping == &anon_space_mapping) instead using
dirty_list_writepage() (which will end up calling block_write_anon_page)
we can fix the buffer flushtime issue.
> There are lots of things we could try here, including some logic inside
> block_write_anon_page to check the current memory pressure/dirty levels to
> see how much work should be done.
At writepage() context we do not know if we should care about the
flushtime.
> I'll play with this a bit, but more ideas would be appreciated.
>
> BTW, recent change to my local code was to remove the ll_rw_block call from
> sync_page_buffers. It seemed cleaner than making try_to_free_buffers
> understand that sometimes writepage will be called, and sometimes the page
> will end up unlocked because of it....comments?
Could you please send me your latest patch ?
Thanks
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:00:33 EST