From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: batched write
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:04:58 -0700
Message-ID: <20060617100458.0be18073.akpm@osdl.org>
References: <44736D3E.8090808@namesys.com>
	<20060524175312.GA3579@zero>
	<44749E24.40203@namesys.com>
	<20060608110044.GA5207@suse.de>
	<1149766000.6336.29.camel@tribesman.namesys.com>
	<20060608121006.GA8474@infradead.org>
	<1150322912.6322.129.camel@tribesman.namesys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hch@infradead.org, Reiserfs-Dev@namesys.com,
	Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:43756 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750723AbWFQRFK (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:05:10 -0400
To: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com>
In-Reply-To: <1150322912.6322.129.camel@tribesman.namesys.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:08:32 +0400
"Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com> wrote:

> The core of generic_file_buffered_write is 
> do {
> 	grab_cache_page();
> 	a_ops->prepare_write();
> 	copy_from_user();
> 	a_ops->commit_write();
> 	
> 	filemap_set_next_iovec();
> 	balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited();
> } while (count);
> 
> 
> Would it make sence to rework this code with adding new address_space
> operation - fill_pages so that looks like:
> 
> do {
> 	a_ops->fill_pages();
> 	filemap_set_next_iovec();
> 	balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited();
> } while (count);
> 
> generic implementation of fill_pages would look like:
> 
> generic_fill_pages()
> {
> 	grab_cache_page();
> 	a_ops->prepare_write();
> 	copy_from_user();
> 	a_ops->commit_write();
> }
> 

There's nothing which leaps out and says "wrong" in this.  But there's
nothing which leaps out and says "right", either.  It seems somewhat
arbitrary, that's all.

We have one filesystem which wants such a refactoring (although I don't
think you've adequately spelled out _why_ reiser4 wants this).

To be able to say "yes, we want this" I think we'd need to understand which
other filesystems would benefit from exploiting it, and with what results?