On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 00:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It could be that we never call test_clear_page_writeback() against
> !bdi_cap_writeback_dirty() pages anwyay. I can't think why we would, but
> the relationships there aren't very clear. Does "don't account for dirty
> memory" imply "doesn't ever do writeback"? One would need to check, and
> it's perhaps a bit fragile.
I did, thats how that test ended up there; I guess a comment would have
been a good thing, no? :-)
end_swap_bio_write() calls end_page_writeback(), and
swap_backing_dev_info has neither cap_writeback nor cap_account_dirty.
> It's worth checking though. Boy we're doing a lot of stuff in there
> nowadays.
>
> OT: it might be worth looking into batching this work up - the predominant
> caller should be mpage_end_io_write(), and he has a whole bunch of pages
> which are usually all from the same file, all contiguous. It's pretty
> inefficient to be handling that data one-page-at-a-time, and some
> significant speedups may be available.
Right, that might be a good spot to hook into, I'll have a look.
> Instead, everyone seems to think that variable pagecache page size is the
> only way of improving things. Shudder.
hehe, I guess you haven't looked at my concurrent pagecache patches yet
either :-)
-
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]
