From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave McCracken Subject: Re: [RFC] fsblock Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:37:09 -0500 Message-ID: <200707092037.10267.dave.mccracken@oracle.com> References: <20070624014528.GA17609@wotan.suse.de> <20070710005419.GB8779@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nick Piggin , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Received: from ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com ([24.93.47.43]:46514 "EHLO ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760552AbXGJBhS (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:37:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Monday 09 July 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > There are no changes to the filesystem API for large pages (although I > > am adding a couple of helpers to do page based bitmap ops). And I don't > > want to rely on contiguous memory. Why do you think handling of large > > pages (presumably you mean larger than page sized blocks) is strange? > > We already have a way to handle large pages: Compound pages. Um, no, we don't, assuming by compound pages you mean order > 0 pages.. None of the stack of changes necessary to make these pages viable has yet been accepted, ie antifrag, defrag, and variable page cache. While these changes may yet all go in and work wonderfully, I applaud Nick's alternative solution that does not include a depency on them. Dave McCracken