On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:56:09AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 10:34 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:04:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 09:36 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > The equivalent of ->direct_IO should be used for both reads and writes.
> > >
> > > So the difference between DIO and swapIO is that swapIO needs the block
> > > map pinned in memory.. So at the very least you'll need those
> > > swap_{activate,deactivate} aops. The read/write-page thingies could
> > > indeed be shared with DIO.
> > >
> >
> > I'm travelling at the moment so it'll be later in the week when I investigate
> > properly but I agree swap_[de|a]ctivate are still necessary. NFS does not
> > need to pin a block map but it's still necessary for calling xs_set_memalloc.
>
> Right.. but I think the hope was that we could replace the current swap
> bmap hackery with this and simplify the normal swap bits. But yeah,
> networked filesystems don't really bother with block maps on the client
> side ;-)
I took a look at what was involved with doing the block lookups in
ext4. It's what led to patch 4 of this series because it was necessary that
the filesystem get the same information as the generic handler. It got a
bit messy but looked like it would have worked if I kept at it. I stopped
because I did nt see a major advantage with swap_writepage() looking up
the block map instead of having looked it up in advance with bmap() but
I could have missed something.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>