Re: [PATCH] modified segq for 2.5

Rik van Riel
2002-09-09T22:41:32Z

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > generic_file_write, once that function moves beyond the last
> > byte of the page, onto the next page, we can be pretty sure
> > it's done writing to this page
>
> Oh. So why don't we just start those new pages out on the
> inactive list?

I guess that should work, combined with a re-dropping of
pages when we're doing sequential writes.

> I fear that this change will result in us encountering more dirty
> pages on the inactive list.

If that's a problem, something is seriously fucked with
the VM ;)

> Do we remove the SetPageReferenced() in generic_file_write?

Good question, I think we'll want to SetPageReferenced() when
we do a partial write but ClearPageReferenced() when we've
"written past the end" of the page.

regards,

Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

Spamtraps of the month: september@surriel.com trac@trac.org