From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Is nobh code still useful?
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:16:48 -0400
Message-ID: <20090923141648.GA15934@infradead.org>
References: <20090917135627.GB13660@duck.suse.cz> <4AB30AD1.7010400@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1753260AbZIWOQt@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4AB30AD1.7010400@us.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:21:37PM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> Originally it was supported on ext2. I added support nobh support for  
> ext3. At that time, the main
> issue/complaint was that, these bufferheads consume memory from  
> ZONE_NORMAL causing
> memory pressure on 32-bit (i386) configurations.

Yeah, I think that's a tradeof past it's days.  I'm all for nuking it,
and while we're at it we should also find a better way to integrate the
mpage bits.  Not using them is pretty dumb, so the default aops should
really be mpage if possible, else fall back without the need for
different sets of aops.