lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering.
From
Date
Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> writes:

> Mark Hahn wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> >> Write clustering is one thing it achieves. When we flush a slum, the
> >
> >sure, that's fine. when the VM tells you to write a page,
> >you're free to write *more*, but you certainly must give back
> > that particular page. afaicr, this was the conclusion of the long-ago thread
> > that you're referring to.
> >
> >regards, mark hahn.
> >
> >
> >
> This is bad for use with internal nodes. It simplifies version 4 a bunch to
> assume that if a node is in cache, its parent is also. Not sure what to do
> about it, maybe we need to copy the node. Surely we don't want to copy it
> unless it is a DMA related page cleaning.

Increment the count on the parent page, and don't decrement it until
the child goes away. This might need a notification from
page_cache_release when so you can decrement the count at the
appropriate time. But internal nodes are ``meta'' data which has
always had special freeing rules.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.048 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site