> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 02:25:05AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov (
johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru) wrote:
> > > Oh, god no. Let's not put the inode_lock right at the top of
> > > the VM page cleaning path. We don't need to modify inode state,
> > > the superblock dirty lists, etc - all we need to do is write
> > > dirty pages on a given mapping in a more efficient manner.
> >
> > I'm not advocating that, but having swap on reclaim does not hurt
> > anyone, this is essentially the same, but with different underlying
> > storage. System will do that anyway sooner or later during usual
> > writeback, which in turn can be a result of the same reclaim...
>
> And actually having tiny operations under inode_lock is the last thing
> to worry about when we are about to start writing pages to disk because
> memory is so fragmented that we need to move things around.
>
> That is the simplest from the typing viewpoint, one can also do
> something like that:
>
> struct address_space *mapping = page->mapping;
> struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
> struct writeback_control wbc = {
> .bdi = bdi,
> .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_ALL, /* likly we want to wait... */
> .older_than_this = NULL,
> .nr_to_write = 13,
> .range_cyclic = 0,
> .range_start = start_index,
> .range_end = end_index
> };
>
> do_writepages(mapping, &wbc);
