On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > I expect we could take that approach in the current kernel, yes > > (though it would put those compound tests into the bio code that > > Jens was preferring to remove). But I think not if your variable > > page_cache_size went in: imagine an mmap of the tail component page > > of an order-1 page_cache_size page, and that pte only being dirtied: > > wouldn't set_page_dirty on that page need to redirect to the head? > > We would need to redirect all of the page state determinations and changes > to the head page anyways. So the memory.c code would have to deal with two > struct page pointers: One to the head where the state is kept and one to > the tail page that contains the actual chunk of data we are interested in. > The tail page pointer is only used for address determinations. > > VM functions that manipulate the state of a page (like set_page_dirty) > could rely on only getting page heads.
Maybe. Sounds ugly. "would": so your patches remain just an RFC? Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
