Re: 2.6.6-rc{1,2} bad VM/NFS interaction in case of dirty pagewriteback

[Andrew Morton]

Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm not yet sure where I'm heading with revamping xfs_aops.c, but what
>  I'd love to see in the end is more or less xfs implementing only
>  writepages and some generic implement writepage as writepages wrapper.

That might make sense.  One problem is that writepage expects to be passed
a locked page whereas writepages() does not.

Any code which implements writearound-inside-writepage should be targetted
at a generic implementation, not an fs-specific one if poss.  We could go
look at the ->vm_writeback() a_op which was in in 2.5.20 or thereabouts. 
it was causing problems and had no discernable benefits so I ripped it out.

A writearound-within-writepage implementation would need to decide whether
it's goign to use lock_page() or TryLockPage().  I expect lock_page() will
be OK - we only call in there for __GFP_FS allocators.

-
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/