On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > We would need to redirect all of the page state determinations and changes
> > to the head page anyways. So the memory.c code would have to deal with two
> > struct page pointers: One to the head where the state is kept and one to
> > the tail page
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I expect we could take that approach in the current kernel, yes
> (though it would put those compound tests into the bio code that
> Jens was preferring to remove). But I think not if your variable
> page_cache_size went in: imagine an mmap of the tail
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > I expect we could take that approach in the current kernel, yes
> > (though it would put those compound tests into the bio code that
> > Jens was preferring to remove). But I think not if your variable
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:35:17 +0100 (BST)
> Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I didn't see any attention to set_page_dirty in Christoph's
> > Large Blocksize (variable page_cachesize) patches, but I expect
> > he'd also be wanting
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
I expect we could take that approach in the current kernel, yes
(though it would put those compound tests into the bio code that
Jens was preferring to remove). But I think not if your variable
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:35:17 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't see any attention to set_page_dirty in Christoph's
Large Blocksize (variable page_cachesize) patches, but I expect
he'd also be wanting set_page_dirty to
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
We would need to redirect all of the page state determinations and changes
to the head page anyways. So the memory.c code would have to deal with two
struct page pointers: One to the head where the state is kept and one to
the tail page that
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
I expect we could take that approach in the current kernel, yes
(though it would put those compound tests into the bio code that
Jens was preferring to remove). But I think not if your variable
page_cache_size went in: imagine an mmap of the tail
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:35:17 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't see any attention to set_page_dirty in Christoph's
> Large Blocksize (variable page_cachesize) patches, but I expect
> he'd also be wanting set_page_dirty to act on compound_head.
There is no need for
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:35:17 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't see any attention to set_page_dirty in Christoph's
Large Blocksize (variable page_cachesize) patches, but I expect
he'd also be wanting set_page_dirty to act on compound_head.
There is no need for special
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:35:17PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I started from your patch. But it now seems to me a bugfix to remove
> those PageCompound tests, because they're preventing a hugetlb page
> from being marked dirty, when Ken needs it to be marked dirty so
> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >
> > > Since I had my hands dirty already...
> >
> > Great, thanks. (There's also such a test in fs/nfs/direct.c,
> > but let's not trouble Trond until we've settled
On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >
> > > Since I had my hands dirty already...
> >
> > Great, thanks. (There's also such a test in fs/nfs/direct.c,
> > but let's not trouble Trond until we've settled
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > Since I had my hands dirty already...
>
> Great, thanks. (There's also such a test in fs/nfs/direct.c,
> but let's not trouble Trond until we've settled what to do here.)
>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > [PATCH]
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
Since I had my hands dirty already...
Great, thanks. (There's also such a test in fs/nfs/direct.c,
but let's not trouble Trond until we've settled what to do here.)
---
[PATCH] Remove
On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
Since I had my hands dirty already...
Great, thanks. (There's also such a test in fs/nfs/direct.c,
but let's not trouble Trond until we've settled what to do
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
Since I had my hands dirty already...
Great, thanks. (There's also such a test in fs/nfs/direct.c,
but let's not trouble Trond until we've settled what to do
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:35:17PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
I started from your patch. But it now seems to me a bugfix to remove
those PageCompound tests, because they're preventing a hugetlb page
from being marked dirty, when Ken needs it to be marked dirty so
/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> Since I had my hands dirty already...
Great, thanks. (There's also such a test in fs/nfs/direct.c,
but let's not trouble Trond until we've settled what to do here.)
>
> ---
>
> [PATCH] Remove PageCompound() checks before calling set_page_dirty()
>
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > OK, you clearly have more knowledge in that area than I, but I do wish
> > that you would have made a note in the code at least to remove things
> > like this. It's pretty ugly to have superflous tests like
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> OK, you clearly have more knowledge in that area than I, but I do wish
> that you would have made a note in the code at least to remove things
> like this. It's pretty ugly to have superflous tests like that,
> especially since there was not even a
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >
> > > We have these checks scattered, makes sense to put them in
> > > set_page_dirty() instead. This also fixes a bug where __bio_unmap_user()
> > > does
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > We have these checks scattered, makes sense to put them in
> > set_page_dirty() instead. This also fixes a bug where __bio_unmap_user()
> > does set_page_dirty_lock() without checking for a compound page,
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> We have these checks scattered, makes sense to put them in
> set_page_dirty() instead. This also fixes a bug where __bio_unmap_user()
> does set_page_dirty_lock() without checking for a compound page, instead
> of adding one more check we move it to
Hi,
We have these checks scattered, makes sense to put them in
set_page_dirty() instead. This also fixes a bug where __bio_unmap_user()
does set_page_dirty_lock() without checking for a compound page, instead
of adding one more check we move it to set_page_dirty().
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
Hi,
We have these checks scattered, makes sense to put them in
set_page_dirty() instead. This also fixes a bug where __bio_unmap_user()
does set_page_dirty_lock() without checking for a compound page, instead
of adding one more check we move it to set_page_dirty().
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
We have these checks scattered, makes sense to put them in
set_page_dirty() instead. This also fixes a bug where __bio_unmap_user()
does set_page_dirty_lock() without checking for a compound page, instead
of adding one more check we move it to
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
We have these checks scattered, makes sense to put them in
set_page_dirty() instead. This also fixes a bug where __bio_unmap_user()
does set_page_dirty_lock() without checking for a compound page, instead
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
We have these checks scattered, makes sense to put them in
set_page_dirty() instead. This also fixes a bug where __bio_unmap_user()
does set_page_dirty_lock()
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
OK, you clearly have more knowledge in that area than I, but I do wish
that you would have made a note in the code at least to remove things
like this. It's pretty ugly to have superflous tests like that,
especially since there was not even a comment
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
OK, you clearly have more knowledge in that area than I, but I do wish
that you would have made a note in the code at least to remove things
like this. It's pretty ugly to have superflous tests like that,
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
Since I had my hands dirty already...
Great, thanks. (There's also such a test in fs/nfs/direct.c,
but let's not trouble Trond until we've settled what to do here.)
---
[PATCH] Remove PageCompound() checks before calling set_page_dirty()
Pre
32 matches
Mail list logo
