On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 05:40:00PM -0400, jim owens wrote: > > > > I know the page cache currently doesn't support that today, but > > presumably it wouldn't be too hard to add. > > The only reason I did not do something like that is: > 1) I did not want to disturb the page cache with throw-away pages. > 2) "uncached IO" makes it even less like classic direct IO. > 3) Writing that page cache code might not be simpler. > > As further argument against "uncached IO", Chris sent a very simple > patch up to read into page cache then purge it for btrfs direct IO > reads and it was NACKed. Yes, but it wasn't NACKed because it was uncached IO, it was just the mechanics of how I did it. We definitely do save some performance by not hammering on the page cache though, so I do prefer the non-buffered code when it is possible. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
