From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:46:20 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: journaling & VM (was: Re: reiserfs being part of the kernel: it'snot just the code) Message-ID: <20000607154620.O30951@redhat.com> References: <20000607144102.F30951@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:27:56AM -0300 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Hans Reiser , "Quintela Carreira Juan J." , bert hubert , linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, Chris Mason , linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexander Zarochentcev List-ID: Hi, On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:27:56AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > I'd imagine reiserfs can do something similar, but even if not, > > it's not important if the filesystem can't do its lookup by > > page. > > I don't necessarily agree on this point. What if our > inactive list is filled with pages the filesystem somehow > regards as new, and the filesystem will be busy flushing > the "wrong" (in the eyes of the page stealer) pages? It doesn't matter. *If* the filesystem knows better than the page cleaner what progress can be made, then let the filesystem make progress where it can. There are likely to be transaction dependencies which mean we have to clean some pages in a specific order. As soon as the page cleaner starts exerting back pressure on the filesystem, the filesystem needs to start clearing stuff, and if that means we have to start cleaning things that shrink_ mmap didn't expect us to, then that's fine. 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/