Re: [PATCH] mm: set_page_dirty_balance() vs ->page_mkwrite()

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

On Tuesday 09 October 2007 12:12, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:47:52PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > block_page_mkwrite() is just using generic interfaces to do this,
> > > same as pretty much any write() system call. The idea was to make it
> > > as similar to the write() call path as possible...
> > >
> > > However, unlike generic_file_buffered_write(), we are not calling
> > > balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(mapping) between
> > > ->prepare/commit_write call pairs.  Perhaps this should be added to
> > > block_page_mkwrite() after the page is unlocked....
> >
> > That sounds pretty sane, in terms of matching with
> > generic_file_buffered_write.
>
> I agree. We could also insert a call to balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited()
> in __ocfs2_page_mkwrite.

Hmm, Peter's patch got merged -- I suppose that's fine for 2.6.23 though...

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/