lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [some sanity for a change] possible design issues for hybrids
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:56:39AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> If it is created on the fly, it should be "easy" to destroy on the fly
> using time-based expiry, i.e. a kernel daemon going over all of those
> beasts every X seconds (X = 5 perhaps?) and doing something like:
>
> for (each vfsmount) {
> lock_vfsmount(vfsmount);
> if (MOUNT_IS_BUSY(vfsmount)) {
> unlock_vfsmount(vfsmount);
> continue;
> }
> if (current_time() < (vfsmount->last_used_time +
> vfsmount->expire_after)) {
> unlock_vfsmount(vfsmount);
> continue;
> }
> destroy_locked_vfsmount(vfsmount);
> }
>
> Wouldn't that work?

That would work for a low number of them. But with Hans' "visions" we'd
have a damn lot of them at which point this isn't really scalable.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:1.351 / U:1.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site