On 09/20/2011 09:56 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:45:15PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> Tell the page allocator that pages allocated for a buffered write are
>> expected to become dirty soon.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/file.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c
>> index e7872e4..ea1b892 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
>> @@ -1084,7 +1084,7 @@ static noinline int prepare_pages(struct btrfs_root *root, struct file *file,
>> again:
>> for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++) {
>> pages[i] = find_or_create_page(inode->i_mapping, index + i,
>> - GFP_NOFS);
>> + GFP_NOFS | __GFP_WRITE);
>
> Btw and unrelated to this particular series, I think this should use
> grab_cache_page_write_begin() in the first place.
>
> Most grab_cache_page calls were replaced recently (a94733d "Btrfs: use
> find_or_create_page instead of grab_cache_page") to be able to pass
> GFP_NOFS, but the pages are now also no longer __GFP_HIGHMEM and
> __GFP_MOVABLE, which irks both x86_32 and memory hotplug.
>
> It might be better to change grab_cache_page instead to take a flags
> argument that allows passing AOP_FLAG_NOFS and revert the sites back
> to this helper?
So I can do
pages[i] = grab_cache_page_write_begin(inode->i_mapping, index + i,
AOP_FLAG_NOFS);
right? All we need is nofs, so I can just go through and change
everybody to that. I'd rather not have to go through and change
grab_cache_page() to take a flags argument and change all the callers, I
have a bad habit of screwing stuff like that up :). Thanks,
Josef
--
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>