From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: [RFC] using writepage to start io Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:18:26 +0200 References: <755760000.997128720@tiny> In-Reply-To: <755760000.997128720@tiny> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01080623182601.01864@starship> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Chris Mason , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Monday 06 August 2001 22:12, Chris Mason wrote: > On Monday, August 06, 2001 09:45:12 PM +0200 Daniel Phillips > > wrote: > >> Almost ;-) memory pressure doesn't need to care about how long a > >> buffer has been dirty, that's kupdate's job. kupdate doesn't care > >> if the buffer it is writing is a good candidate for freeing, that's > >> taken care of elsewhere. The two never need to talk (aside from > >> optimizations). > > > > My point is, they should talk, in fact they should be the same > > function. It's never right for bdflush to submit younger buffers > > when there are dirty buffers whose flush time has already passed. > > Grin, we're talking in circles. My point is that by having two > threads, bdflush is allowed to skip over older buffers in favor of > younger ones because somebody else is responsible for writing the > older ones out. Yes, and you can't imagine an algorithm that could do that with *one* thread? -- Daniel -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/