On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:53:00PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >The problem with this approach is that it turns around the whole
> >way we look at bufferheads. Right now we have well defined 1:n
> >mapping of page to bufferheads and so we tpyically lock the
> >page first them iterate all the bufferheads on the page.
> >
> >Going the other way, we need to support m:n which we means
> >the buffer has to become the primary interface for the filesystem
> >to the page cache. i.e. we need to lock the bufferhead first, then
> >iterate all the pages on it. This is messy because the cache indexes
> >via pages, not bufferheads. hence a buffer needs to point to all the
> >pages in it explicitly, and this leads to interesting issues with
> >locking.
> >
>
> Why is it necessary to assume that one filesystem block == one buffer?
> Is it for atomicity, efficiency, or something else?
By definition, really - each filesystem block has it's own state and
it's own disk mapping and so we need something to carry that
information around....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
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]
