On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Something like this ought to do I guess. Although my > mapping_is_buffercache() is the ugliest thing. I'm sure that can be done > better.
No, this absolutely sucks. Why? It's totally unacceptable to have per-mapping notions of how much memory we have. We used to do *exactly* that, and it's idiocy. The reason it's unacceptable idiocy is that it means that two processes that access different files will then have *TOTALLY*DIFFERENT* notions of what the "dirty limit" is. And as a result, one process will happily write lots and lots of dirty stuff and never throttle, and the other process will have to throttle all the time - and clean up after the process that didn't! See? The fact is, because we count dirty pages as one resource, we must also have *one* limit. So this patch is a huge regression. You might not notice it, because if everybody writes to the same kind of mapping, nobody will be hurt (they all have effectively the same global limit anyway), but you *will* notice if you ever have two different values of "highmem". Unacceptable. We used to do exactly what your patch does, and it got fixed once. We're not introducing that fundamentally broken concept again. Linus - 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/