From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:44:08 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC] fsblock Message-ID: <20070630104408.GD24123@infradead.org> References: <20070624014528.GA17609@wotan.suse.de> <467DE00A.9080700@garzik.org> <20070624034755.GA3292@wotan.suse.de> <20070624135126.GA10077@think.oraclecorp.com> <467F67A8.3030408@yahoo.com.au> <20070625122521.GA12446@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070625122521.GA12446@think.oraclecorp.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Chris Mason Cc: Nick Piggin , Nick Piggin , Jeff Garzik , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 08:25:21AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > write_begin/write_end is a step in that direction (and it helps > > OCFS and GFS quite a bit). I think there is also not much reason > > for writepage sites to require the page to lock the page and clear > > the dirty bit themselves (which has seems ugly to me). > > If we keep the page mapping information with the page all the time (ie > writepage doesn't have to call get_block ever), it may be possible to > avoid sending down a locked page. But, I don't know the delayed > allocation internals well enough to say for sure if that is true. The point of delayed allocations is that the mapping information doesn't even exist until writepage for new allocations :) -- 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: email@kvack.org