Re: [PATCH] rd: Use a private inode for backing storage

[Eric W. Biederman]

Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Saturday 20 October 2007 08:51, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Currently the ramdisk tries to keep the block device page cache pages
>> from being marked clean and dropped from memory.  That fails for
>> filesystems that use the buffer cache because the buffer cache is not
>> an ordinary buffer cache user and depends on the generic block device
>> address space operations being used.
>>
>> To fix all of those associated problems this patch allocates a private
>> inode to store the ramdisk pages in.
>>
>> The result is slightly more memory used for metadata, an extra copying
>> when reading or writing directly to the block device, and changing the
>> software block size does not loose the contents of the ramdisk.  Most
>> of all this ensures we don't loose data during normal use of the
>> ramdisk.
>>
>> I deliberately avoid the cleanup that is now possible because this
>> patch is intended to be a bug fix.
>
> This just breaks coherency again like the last patch. That's a
> really bad idea especially for stable (even if nothing actually
> was to break, we'd likely never know about it anyway).

Not a chance.  The only way we make it to that inode is through block
device I/O so it lives at exactly the same level in the hierarchy as
a real block device.  My patch is the considered rewrite boiled down
to it's essentials and made a trivial patch.

It fundamentally fixes the problem, and doesn't attempt to reconcile
the incompatible expectations of the ramdisk code and the buffer cache.

> Christian's patch should go upstream and into stable. For 2.6.25-6,
> my rewrite should just replace what's there. Using address spaces
> to hold the ramdisk pages just confuses the issue even if they
> *aren't* actually wired up to the vfs at all. Saving 20 lines is
> not a good reason to use them.

Well is more like saving 100 lines.  Not having to reexamine complicated
infrastructure code and doing things the same way ramfs is.  I think
that combination is a good reason.  Especially since I can do with a
16 line patch as I just demonstrated.  It is a solid and simple
incremental change.

Eric
-
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/