Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:05:32 -0500I read this as "It is ok to give system admin(s) commands (that this "drop_pagecache_sb() call" is all about) to drop page cache. It is, however, not ok to give filesystem developer(s) this very same function to trim their own page cache if the filesystems choose to do so" ?
Wendy Cheng <wcheng@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The idea is, instead of unconditionally dropping every buffer associated with the particular mount point (that defeats the purpose of page caching), base kernel exports the "drop_pagecache_sb()" call that allows page cache to be trimmed. More importantly, it is changed to offer the choice of not randomly purging any buffer but the ones that seem to be unused (i_state is NULL and i_count is zero). This will encourage filesystem(s) to pro actively response to vm memory shortage if they choose so.
argh.
In Linux a filesystem is a dumb layer which sits between the VFS and theLinux kernel, particularly the VFS layer, is starting to show signs of inadequacy as the software components built upon it keep growing. I have doubts that it can keep up and handle this complexity with a development policy like you just described (filesystem is a dumb layer ?). Aren't these DIO_xxx_LOCKING flags inside __blockdev_direct_IO() a perfect example why trying to do too many things inside vfs layer for so many filesystems is a bad idea ? By the way, since we're on this subject, could we discuss a little bit about vfs rename call (or I can start another new discussion thread) ?
I/O layer and provides dumb services such as reading/writing inodes,
reading/writing directory entries, mapping pagecache offsets to disk
blocks, etc. (This model is to varying degrees incorrect for every
post-ext2 filesystem, but that's the way it is).
Note that linux do_rename() starts with the usual lookup logic, followed by "lock_rename", then a final round of dentry lookup, and finally comes to filesystem's i_op->rename call. Since lock_rename() only calls for vfs layer locks that are local to this particular machine, for a cluster filesystem, there exists a huge window between the final lookup and filesystem's i_op->rename calls such that the file could get deleted from another node before fs can do anything about it. Is it possible that we could get a new function pointer (lock_rename) in inode_operations structure so a cluster filesystem can do proper locking ?