[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200710090050.05059.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:50:04 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>, 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>,
hugh <hugh@...itas.com>, stable <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: set_page_dirty_balance() vs ->page_mkwrite()
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 12:12, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:47:52PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> I agree. We could also insert a call to balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited()
> in __ocfs2_page_mkwrite.
Hmm, Peter's patch got merged -- I suppose that's fine for 2.6.23 though...
-
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