On 6 Jun 2000, Quintela Carreira Juan J. wrote:
> >>>>> "chris" == Chris Mason <mason@suse.com> writes:
>
> Hi
>
> chris> 2) A memory pressure call back in the address space operations. This
> chris> really does seem more flexible than a call in struct super_operations.
>
> I have not read nor ReiserFS code nor ext3 code. Do you push all your
> pages in the page cache?
All my pinned memory is in the buffer cache right now.
> If that is the case, I think that a call in
> the address space operations is great. The problem is that I can't
> see how do you will be able to free memory from an isolated page, I
> assume that you need _quite a lot_ of context to decide which page you
> can free.
>
It gets sticky, because it is unlikely the journal layers (of any FS) can
free a huge amount of pinned memory on demand. We can commit old, async
transactions (completed transcations that are fully in the log yet) right
away, but we can't force the current transaction to end until all the
writers are done.
So, my memory pressure call back will probably ignore the page being sent
in (aside from finding the inode/super associated with it) It will
free what it can, and schedule a commit/flush of the current transaction
as soon as possible.
Later on, it could be tuned to only try to flush the transactions
associated with a given page, I can only guess right now on the results.
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:25 EST