Don't fall into the trap of thinking that blocksizes are constant for a
Yes, they are _right_now_, if only because of limitations of the old
buffer cache. But it's very very wrong to think you can get the buffer
size from the mapping.
Besides - we want to be able to do IO _without_ any mappings at all. The
"iobuf" thing should be completely mapping-independent, in case somebody
wants to just do raw IO.
Which means that these two:
> kdev_t b_dev; /* device (B_FREE = free) */
> void (*b_end_io)(struct buffer_head *bh, int uptodate); /* I/O completion */
also have to be in the iobuf anyway, quite regardless of any other issues.
> Could possibly get rid of (with a page cache mapping):
> struct buffer_head *b_next; /* Hash queue list */
> struct buffer_head **b_pprev; /* doubly linked list of hash-queue */
> Used by raid, loop and highmem, could move to request struct:
> void *b_private; /* reserved for b_end_io */
No. We only have one request struct, and we can have hundreds of buffers
associated with it. This is very much a iobuf thing.
> Should die:
> kdev_t b_rdev; /* Real device */
> unsigned long b_rsector; /* Real buffer location on disk */
No - these are what all the indirect IO code uses.
> struct buffer_head *b_next_free;/* lru/free list linkage */
> struct buffer_head *b_prev_free;/* doubly linked list of buffers */
Right now we keep the dirty list in these. We should drop it eventually,
and just every time we mark a buffer dirty we also mark the page dirty,
and then we use the _real_ dirty lists (which are nicely per-inode etc).
> > Maybe we could do without bh->b_count, but it is at least
> > currently required for backwards compatibility with all the code that
> > thinks buffer heads are autonomous entities. But I actually suspect it
> > makes a lot of sense even for a stand-alone IO entity (I'm a firm believer
> > in reference counting as a way to avoid memory management trouble).
> Maybe. We might be able to tell from the state flags and the page use count
> that the buffer head is really freeable.
I doubt it. Almost all data structures that are reachable many ways need
to have a _count_.
People who think that locking is a way of "pinning" data structures are
invariably wrong, stupid, and need to get spanked. Reference counts rule.
> > Dan, how much of this do you have?
> Working code? Just the page cache version of ext2_getblk in the directory
> indexing patch.
Which is probably fine - we could replace the existing getblk with it, and
do only minor fixups. Maybe.
> One observation: the buffer hash link is currently unused for page cache
> buffers. We could possibly use that for reverse mapping from logical inode
> blocks to physical device blocks, to combat aliasing.
That still assumes that we have to look them up, which I'd rather avoid.
Also, I'd rather get rid of the buffer hash link completely, instead of
making it more confusing..
> A spin-off benefit
> is, the same mechanism could be used to implement a physical readahead
> cache which can do things that logical readahead can't.
Considering that 99.9% of all disks do this on a lower hardware layer
anyway, I very much doubt it has any good properties to make software more
complex by having that kind of readahead in sw.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/