From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 02:17:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro Subject: Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Alexander Viro , Ingo Molnar , Andrea Arcangeli , Rik van Riel , Roger Larsson , Alexander Viro , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I'm not claiming that the buffer cache accesses would go away - I'm just > saying that the unbalanced "only buffer cache" case should go away, > because things like "find" and friends will still cause mostly page cache > activity. > > (Considering the size of the inode on ext2, I don't know how true this is, > I have to admit. It might still be quite biased towards the buffer cache, > and as such the additional page cache pressure might not be enough to > really cause any major shift in balancing). Hrrrmmm... You know, since we don't have to associate struct inode with every address space and inode table _is_ a linear array, after all... We might put it into pagecache too. Very few places access the on-disk inode, so it's not too horrible. All we need is readpage() and that's very easy, considering the fact that allocation is static. prepare_write() and commit_write() may be NULL for all I care and writepage() will be easy too - no holes, no allocation, no nothing. Looks like we need to deal with ext2_update_inode(), ext2_read_inode() and that's it. Even less intrusive than directory stuff... Comments? -- 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/