On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:10:43PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 12:05 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > > comments about missing page_cache_size() covered elsewhere. However, I
> > > note that Dave Kleikamp might be
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:10:43PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 12:05 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
comments about missing page_cache_size() covered elsewhere. However, I
note that Dave Kleikamp might be interested in this
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 12:10 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > Yeah. I'm working on patches for storing file tails in buffers
> > allocated from the slab cache, and the tail will be represented by a
> > fake struct page. (This is primarily for kernels
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 12:05 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > comments about missing page_cache_size() covered elsewhere. However, I
> > note that Dave Kleikamp might be interested in this changing of
> > page_cache_size() from the perspective of page
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 12:05 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> comments about missing page_cache_size() covered elsewhere. However, I
> note that Dave Kleikamp might be interested in this changing of
> page_cache_size() from the perspective of page cache tails. I've added
> him to the cc so he can take a
On Fri, Apr 20 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > This works fine as long as you are in the submitter context, but once
> > you pass the into the block layer, we don't have any way to find the
> > address space (at least we don't want to). Would
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> This works fine as long as you are in the submitter context, but once
> you pass the into the block layer, we don't have any way to find the
> address space (at least we don't want to). Would something like this be
> workable, name withstanding:
>
>
On (19/04/07 09:35), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce:
> Variable Order Page Cache: Fixup fallback functions
>
> Fixup the fallback function in fs/libfs.c to be able to handle
> higher order page cache pages.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ---
> fs/libfs.c | 16
On Thu, Apr 19 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> +static inline int page_cache_shift(struct address_space *a)
> +{
> + return a->order + PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned long page_cache_size(struct address_space *a)
> +{
> + return PAGE_CACHE_SIZE << a->order;
> +}
This
On Thu, Apr 19 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
+static inline int page_cache_shift(struct address_space *a)
+{
+ return a-order + PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long page_cache_size(struct address_space *a)
+{
+ return PAGE_CACHE_SIZE a-order;
+}
This works fine
On (19/04/07 09:35), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce:
Variable Order Page Cache: Fixup fallback functions
Fixup the fallback function in fs/libfs.c to be able to handle
higher order page cache pages.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/libfs.c | 16
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
This works fine as long as you are in the submitter context, but once
you pass the into the block layer, we don't have any way to find the
address space (at least we don't want to). Would something like this be
workable, name withstanding:
static
On Fri, Apr 20 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
This works fine as long as you are in the submitter context, but once
you pass the into the block layer, we don't have any way to find the
address space (at least we don't want to). Would something like
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 12:05 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
comments about missing page_cache_size() covered elsewhere. However, I
note that Dave Kleikamp might be interested in this changing of
page_cache_size() from the perspective of page cache tails. I've added
him to the cc so he can take a
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 12:05 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
comments about missing page_cache_size() covered elsewhere. However, I
note that Dave Kleikamp might be interested in this changing of
page_cache_size() from the perspective of page cache
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 12:10 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
Yeah. I'm working on patches for storing file tails in buffers
allocated from the slab cache, and the tail will be represented by a
fake struct page. (This is primarily for kernels with a
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, David Chinner wrote:
> I think PAGE_CACHE_SIZE is a redundant define with these
> modifications. The page cache size in now variable and it is based
> on a multiple of PAGE_SIZE. Hence I suggest that PAGE_CACHE_SIZE and
> it's derivitives should be made to go away completely
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:10:34PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Variable Order Page Cache: Add functions to establish sizes
>
> We use the macros PAGE_CACHE_SIZE PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT PAGE_CACHE_MASK
> and PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN in various places in the kernel. These are now
> the base page size but we
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Adam Litke wrote:
> On 4/19/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > @@ -331,11 +331,15 @@ int simple_prepare_write(struct file *fi
> > unsigned from, unsigned to)
> > {
> > if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
> > - if (to -
On 4/19/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@@ -331,11 +331,15 @@ int simple_prepare_write(struct file *fi
unsigned from, unsigned to)
{
if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
- if (to - from != PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) {
+ if (to - from !=
Variable Order Page Cache: Fixup fallback functions
Fixup the fallback function in fs/libfs.c to be able to handle
higher order page cache pages.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/libfs.c | 16 ++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Variable Order Page Cache: Fixup fallback functions
Fixup the fallback function in fs/libfs.c to be able to handle
higher order page cache pages.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/libfs.c | 16 ++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Index:
On 4/19/07, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -331,11 +331,15 @@ int simple_prepare_write(struct file *fi
unsigned from, unsigned to)
{
if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
- if (to - from != PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) {
+ if (to - from !=
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Adam Litke wrote:
On 4/19/07, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -331,11 +331,15 @@ int simple_prepare_write(struct file *fi
unsigned from, unsigned to)
{
if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
- if (to - from !=
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:10:34PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Variable Order Page Cache: Add functions to establish sizes
We use the macros PAGE_CACHE_SIZE PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT PAGE_CACHE_MASK
and PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN in various places in the kernel. These are now
the base page size but we do
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, David Chinner wrote:
I think PAGE_CACHE_SIZE is a redundant define with these
modifications. The page cache size in now variable and it is based
on a multiple of PAGE_SIZE. Hence I suggest that PAGE_CACHE_SIZE and
it's derivitives should be made to go away completely
26 matches
Mail list logo
