Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:54:18 -0500 | | From | Peter Staubach <> | | Subject | Re: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs? |
| |
Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote: > >> In many cases the use of O_DIRECT is purely to avoid impact on cache used by >> other applications. An application which writes a large quantity of data will >> have less impact on other applications by using O_DIRECT, assuming that the >> data will not be read from cache due to application pattern or the data being >> much larger than physical memory. >> > > I see that as a good argument _not_ to allow O_DIRECT on tmpfs, > which inevitably impacts cache, even if O_DIRECT were requested. > > But I'd also expect any app requesting O_DIRECT in that way, as a caring > citizen, to fall back to going without O_DIRECT when it's not supported.
I suppose that one could also argue that the backing store for tmpfs is the memory itself and thus, O_DIRECT could or should be supported.
Thanx...
ps - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |