lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/5] fat: allocate persistent inode numbers
Date
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:

>> >> Grepping around... Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt mentions a
>> >> vfs_cache_pressure parameter.
>> >> Yeah. And dirty hack will be possible to adjust sb->s_shrink.batch.
>> > I am worrying if it could lead to OOM condition on embedded
>> > system(short memory(DRAM) and support 3TB HDD disk of big size.)
>> >
>> > Please let me know if any issues or queries.
>>
>> So, now I think stable inode number may be useful if there are users of
>> it. And I guess those functionality is no collisions with -mm. And I
>> suppose we can add two modes for "nfs" option (e.g. nfs=1 and nfs=2).
>>
>> If nfs=1, works like current -mm without no limited operations.
>
> Apologies, I haven't been following the conversation carefully: remind
> me what "works like current -mm" means?

Current -mm means the best-effort work only if inode cache is not
evicted. I.e. if there is no inode cache anymore on server, server
would return ESTALE. So I guess the behavior would not be stable
relatively.

Thanks.

>> If nfs=2, try to make stable FH and limit some operations
>>
>> (option name doesn't matter here.)
>>
>> Does this work fine?
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-13 15:01    [W:0.063 / U:3.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site