From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Bufferheads & page-cache reference Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:31:42 -0800 Message-ID: <20050214143142.6c12fdb3.akpm@osdl.org> References: <1108409415.20053.1278.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050214134058.1402cfed.akpm@osdl.org> <20050214221044.GX13009@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pbadari@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:47320 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261164AbVBNWb5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:31:57 -0500 To: William Lee Irwin III In-Reply-To: <20050214221044.GX13009@holomorphy.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:40:58PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Seems about right. There's also the buffer_heads_over_limit logic in > > mm/vmscan.c and fs/buffer.c. That logic has a hole in that it requires > > that there be a highmem shortage before we start to reclaim the lowmem > > buffer_heads, but it is somewhat helpful. > > It would be beneficial to close the hole in that logic. Really? Who's hurting? > Do you have any > particularly preferred methods in mind? > None that are particularly elegant. One approach might be to trigger a highmem zone scan when we hit the limit, and to somehow tell that scan to only do buffer_head stripping.