Excerpts from Matthew Wilcox's message of September 4, 2021 5:01 am: > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 05:10:31PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> Excerpts from Matthew Wilcox's message of September 2, 2021 8:17 pm: >> > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 01:25:36PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> >> > I have been thinking about this a bit; one of our internal performance >> >> > teams flagged the potential performance win to me a few months ago. >> >> > I don't have a concrete design for text replication yet; there have been >> >> > various attempts over the years, but none were particularly compelling. >> >> >> >> What was not compelling about it? >> > >> > It wasn't merged, so clearly it wasn't compelling enough? >> >> Ha ha. It sounded like you had some reasons you didn't find it >> particularly compelling :P > > I haven't studied it in detail, but it seems to me that your patch (from > 2007!) chooses whether to store pages or pcache_desc pointers in i_pages. > Was there a reason you chose to do it that way instead of having per-node > i_mapping pointers? What Linus said. The patch was obviously mechanism only and more heuristics would need to be done (in that case you could have per inode hints or whatever). > (And which way would you choose to do it now, given > the infrastructure we have now?) I'm not aware of anything new that would change it fundamentally. Thanks, Nick
