[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-fsdevel
Subject:    Re: PAGE_CACHE_SIZE vs. PAGE_SIZE
From:       Andrew Morton <akpm () linux-foundation ! org>
Date:       2013-01-31 22:40:26
Message-ID: 20130131144026.bd735c07.akpm () linux-foundation ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:57:25 +0200
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> PAGE_CACHE_* macros were introduced long time ago in hope to implement
> page cache with larger chunks than one page in future.
> 
> In fact it was never done.
> 
> Some code paths assume PAGE_CACHE_SIZE <= PAGE_SIZE. E.g. we use
> zero_user_segments() to clear stale parts of page on cache filling, but
> the function is implemented only for individual small page.
> 
> It's unlikely that global switch to PAGE_CACHE_SIZE > PAGE_SIZE will never
> happen since it will affect to much code at once.
> 
> I think support of larger chunks in page cache can be in implemented in
> some form of THP with per-fs enabling.
> 
> Is it time to get rid of PAGE_CACHE_* macros?
> I can prepare patchset if it's okay.

The distinct PAGE_CACHE_SIZE has never been used for anything, but I do
kinda like it for documentary reasons: PAGE_SIZE is a raw, low-level
thing and PAGE_CACHE_SIZE is the specialized
we're-doing-pagecache-stuff thing.

But I'm sure I could get used to not having it ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]