On Friday, December 22, 2000 17:52:28 -0200 Marcelo Tosatti
<marcelo@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
> There is one more nasty issue to deal with.
>
> You only want to take into account the buffer flushtime if
> "check_flushtime" parameter is passed as true to flush_dirty_buffers
> (which is done by kupdate).
>
> Thinking a bit more about the issue, I dont see any reason why we want to
> write all buffers of an anonymous page at
> sync_buffers/flush_dirty_buffers.
>
> I think we could simply write the buffer with ll_rw_block() if the page
> which this buffer is sitting on does not have mapping->a_ops->writepage
> operation defined.
>
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).
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.
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?
-chris
-
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 : Fri Dec 22 2000 - 18:50:17 EST