[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F3C6594.3030709@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:10:28 -0800
From: Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>
To: Andrea Righi <andrea@...terlinux.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Pádraig Brady <P@...igBrady.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Jerry James <jamesjer@...terlinux.com>,
Julius Plenz <julius@...nz.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] fadvise: implement POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE
On 2/15/12 4:56 PM, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Oh sorry, you're right! nocache_tree is not a pointer inside
> address_space, so the compiler must know the size.
>
> mmh... move the definition of the rb_root struct in linux/types.h? or
> simply use a rb_root pointer. The (void *) looks a bit scary and too bug
> prone.
Either way is fine. I did some black box testing of the patch (comparing
noreuse vs dontneed) and it behaves as expected.
On a file copy, neither one pollutes the page cache. But if I run a
random read benchmark on the source file right before and afterwards,
page cache is warm with noreuse, but cold with dontneed. Copy
performance was unaffected.
I can't really comment on the implementation details since I haven't
reviewed it, but the functionality sounds useful.
-Arun
--
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