On Wednesday 17 October 2007 20:30, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tuesday 16 October 2007 18:08, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> On Tuesday 16 October 2007 14:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > > What magic restrictions on page allocations? Actually we have > >> > > fewer restrictions on page allocations because we can use > >> > > highmem! > >> > > >> > With the proposed rewrite yes. > > > > Here's a quick first hack... > > > > Comments? > > I have beaten my version of this into working shape, and things > seem ok. > > However I'm beginning to think that the real solution is to remove > the dependence on buffer heads for caching the disk mapping for > data pages, and move the metadata buffer heads off of the block > device page cache pages. Although I am just a touch concerned > there may be an issue with using filesystem tools while the > filesystem is mounted if I move the metadata buffer heads. > > If we were to move the metadata buffer heads (assuming I haven't > missed some weird dependency) then I think there a bunch of > weird corner cases that would be simplified.
I'd prefer just to go along the lines of what I posted. It's a pure block device driver which knows absolutely nothing about vm or vfs. What are you guys using rd for, and is it really important to have this supposed buffercache optimisation? > I guess that is where I look next. > > Oh for what it is worth I took a quick look at fsblock and I don't think > struct fsblock makes much sense as a block mapping translation layer for > the data path where the current page caches works well. Except the page cache doesn't store any such translation. fsblock works very nicely as a buffer_head and nobh-mode replacement there, but we could probably go one better (for many filesystems) by using a tree. > For less > then the cost of 1 fsblock I can cache all of the translations for a > 1K filesystem on a 4K page. I'm not exactly sure what you mean, unless you're talking about an extent based data structure. fsblock is fairly slim as far as a generic solution goes. You could probably save 4 or 8 bytes in it, but I don't know if it's worth the trouble. > I haven't looked to see if fsblock makes sense to use as a buffer head > replacement yet. Well I don't want to get too far off topic on the subject of fsblock, and block mappings (because I think the ramdisk driver simply should have nothing to do with any of that)... but fsblock is exactly a buffer head replacement (so if it doesn't make sense, then I've screwed something up badly! ;)) - 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/