Re: [PATCH 06/43] FS-Cache: Recruit a couple of page flags for cache management [ver #46]

[David Howells]

Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 1) PG_mappedtodisk is basically PG_owner_priv_2. Please alias that and
> use it? Then at least we're down to 1 extra flag.
> 2) Why do you need another PG_private?  PG_private for pagecache means
> that it should call into the filesystem when it needs to handle fs data
> attached to the page, right? So PG_private_2 doesn't really make sense
> in that respect.

Won't that either break fs/buffer.c and fs/mpage.c or preclude the use of
FS-Cache with block-based filesystems that use the standard buffer wangling
routines?

As I've previously stated, I want to be able to make ISO9660 use FS-Cache.
That rules out use of PG_mappedtodisk and PG_private for anything FS-Cache
related.

We can actually reclaim PG_private, I think.  There are patches to do that.
At the very least, we can probably reclaim the std buffering code's use of it.

If anything, avoiding the need for PG_fscache_write is probably easier - just
more memory intensive and slower.  I could build a second radix tree for each
inode that kept track of which pages from that inode FS-Cache knows about, and
use the status bits in that node to keep track of what pages are being written
out to the cache.

We still need a way of triggering the page invalidation callbacks for in-use
pages, however.  PG_private, as I've said, is not currently a viable option.

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