On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 15:15 -0200, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In terms of avoiding double-buffering, here's my thought after reading
> > what's been written so far. Suppose we read a page into our buffer
> > pool. Until the page is clean, it would be ideal for the mapping to
> > be shared between the buffer cache and our pool, sort of like
> > copy-on-write. That way, if we decide to evict the page, it will
> > still be in the OS cache if we end up needing it again (remember, the
> > OS cache is typically much larger than our buffer pool). But if the
> > page is dirtied, then instead of copying it, just have the buffer pool
> > forget about it, because at that point we know we're going to write
> > the page back out anyway before evicting it.
> >
> > This would be pretty similar to copy-on-write, except without the
> > copying. It would just be forget-from-the-buffer-pool-on-write.
>
>
> But... either copy-on-write or forget-on-write needs a page fault, and
> thus a page mapping.
>
> Is a page fault more expensive than copying 8k?
>
> (I really don't know).
A page fault can be expensive, yes ... but perhaps you don't need one.
What you want is a range of memory that's read from a file but treated
as anonymous for writeout (i.e. written to swap if we need to reclaim
it). Then at some time later, you want to designate it as written back
to the file instead so you control the writeout order. I'm not sure we
can do this: the separation between file backed and anonymous pages is
pretty deeply ingrained into the OS, but if it were possible, is that
what you want?
James
