Re: invalidate_inode_pages in 2.5.32/3

Urban Widmark
2002-09-14T09:54:38Z

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

> But it's the same story: the requirements of
>
> a) non blocking local IO daemon and
>
> b) assured pagecache takedown
>
> are conflicting. You need at least one more thread, and locking
> against userspace activity.

I see no problem with adding another thread to handle the breaks.

Only the cost of an extra thread and the fact that smbiod was originally
created to handle the break (with a thought to eventually make it do the
IO as it does now) makes me want to put it in smbiod.

/Urban