On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > I expect we could take that approach in the current kernel, yes
> > (though it would put those compound tests into the bio code that
> > Jens was preferring to remove). But I think not if your variable
> > page_cache_size went in: imagine an mmap of the tail component page
> > of an order-1 page_cache_size page, and that pte only being dirtied:
> > wouldn't set_page_dirty on that page need to redirect to the head?
>
> We would need to redirect all of the page state determinations and changes
> to the head page anyways. So the memory.c code would have to deal with two
> struct page pointers: One to the head where the state is kept and one to
> the tail page that contains the actual chunk of data we are interested in.
> The tail page pointer is only used for address determinations.
>
> VM functions that manipulate the state of a page (like set_page_dirty)
> could rely on only getting page heads.
Maybe. Sounds ugly. "would": so your patches remain just an RFC?
Hugh
-
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]
