Re: [Fwd: [patch #2508] ext2fs support for large store (> 1.5G)]

[Ognyan Kulev]

Marco Gerards wrote:
> Right, I forgot about the pokels.  But I missed the rationale behind
> flushing _all_ the pages with ref. count zero.  I understand why it
> has to be zero, I just do not understand why you have to flush all
> instead of just a few.
>
> Perhaps I just read over the text, can you please point me to it?

I meant this (about peeking all pages because of the Mach bug):

"It's true that with large disk
cache, e.g. 512M, this potentially will re-read the whole cache from
disk.  But if we reach this point, the microkernel is telling us that
all is already read :-)"

Obviously this is not directly related to your questions (why not flush 
just some pages, not all), so there is no "rationale" behind this case.

Now I agree that flushing just some pages is always better idea.

Regards,
ogi