From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 May 2002 13:53:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 May 2002 13:53:49 -0400 Received: from imladris.infradead.org ([194.205.184.45]:38417 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 21 May 2002 13:53:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:53:40 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] buffermem_pages removal (5/5) Message-ID: <20020521185340.A694@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020521141015.E15796@infradead.org> <3CEA8917.7A52176C@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 10:51:19AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > The buffermem_pages accounting is vaguely interesting because > it tells us how much of ZONE_NORMAL is being usefully used for > blockdev pagecache. And ZONE_NORMAL utilisation is a bit of a > hot topic at present. Yho sais all blockdev mapping have to stay ZONE_NORMAL? If filesystems access them without buffer_heads there is no reason to not put the pages in high memory. I also remember vaguely that you intend to move buffer_heads to high memory in the longer term.. > But the same information can be obtained on-demand by running > around the bdev superblock's inodes adding up nr_pages. That > approach is better than the per-page atomic ops in buffer.c. *nod*