Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/8] Mapped File Policy Overview

[Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>]

On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 23:03 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Friday 25 May 2007 17:25:15 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 May 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> > 
> > > It's easy to fix.  The shared policy support is already there.  We just
> > > need to generalize it for regular files.  In the process,
> > > *page_cache_alloc() obeys "file policy", which will allow additional
> > > features such as you mentioned:  global page cache policy as the default
> > > "file policy".
> > 
> > A page cache policy would not need to be file based. It would be enough 
> > to have a global one or one per cpuset. And it would not suffer from the 
> > vanishing act of the inodes.
> 
> I agree. A general page cache policy is probably a good idea and having
> it in a cpuset is reasonable too. I've been also toying with the idea to 
> change the global default to interleaved for unmapped files.
> 
> But in this case it's actually not needed to add something to the
> address space. It can be all process policy based.

Just so we're clear, I'm talking about "struct address_space", as in the
file's "mapping", not as in "struct mm_struct".


Lee

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>