On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, David Chinner wrote:
>
> XFS appears to call clear_page_dirty to get the mapping tree dirty
> tag set correctly at the same time the page dirty flag is cleared. I
> note that this can be done by set_page_writeback() if we clear the
> dirty flag on the page first when we are writing back the entire page.
Yes. I think the XFS routine should just use "clear_page_dirty_fir_io()",
since that matches what it actually wants to do (surprise surprise, it's
going to write it out).
HOWEVER. Why is it conditional? Can somebody who understands XFS tell me
why "clear_dirty" would ever be 0? I can grep the sources, and I see that
it's an unconditional 1 in one call-site, but then in the other one it
does
xfs_start_page_writeback(page, wbc, !page_dirty, count);
and that part just blows my mind. Why would you do a
xfs_start_page_writeback() and _not_ write the page out? Is this for a
partial-page-only case?
Anyway, your patch looks fine. It seems to be the right thing to do. I'm
just wondering why we're not always cleaning the whole page, and why we'd
not set it unconditionally dirty?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
