From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:48:46 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: Best way to extend try_to_free_pages()? Message-ID: <20000517114846.P30758@redhat.com> References: <852568E2.000A17E8.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com> <20000517090839.F30758@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no on Wed, May 17, 2000 at 11:44:12AM +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Trond Myklebust Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , frankeh@us.ibm.com, Rik van Riel , Andreas Bombe , linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 11:44:12AM +0200, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > The route we'll probably go for this is through > > address_space_operations callbacks from shrink_mmap. That > > allows proper fairness --- all fses can share the same lru that > > way. > > Could such a proposal for a per-page flushing interface perhaps also > be used for the implementation of more generic versions of 'sync()' & > friends? Right now, the write_super() callback to the fs is about the best place to trap syncs. I'm not sure that you want to have per-page callbacks for sync --- you really want the fs to be able to batch things up itself. Cheers, Stephen -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/