[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200710081747.52627.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:47:52 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: David Chinner <dgc@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
mark.fasheh@...cle.com, hugh <hugh@...itas.com>,
stable <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: set_page_dirty_balance() vs ->page_mkwrite()
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 09:36, David Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:37:00PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 09 October 2007 02:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Force a balance call if ->page_mkwrite() was successful.
> >
> > Would it be better to just have the callers set_page_dirty_balance()?
>
> block_page_mkwrite() is just using generic interfaces to do this,
> same as pretty much any write() system call. The idea was to make it
> as similar to the write() call path as possible...
>
> However, unlike generic_file_buffered_write(), we are not calling
> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(mapping) between
> ->prepare/commit_write call pairs. Perhaps this should be added to
> block_page_mkwrite() after the page is unlocked....
That sounds pretty sane, in terms of matching with
generic_file_buffered_write.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists