[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110415211334.GA24870@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:13:34 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
William Irwin <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: hugetlb locking bug.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:09:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Is there a sane reason they do their own magic, and thus need a copy of
> the logic, instead of using the generic code that already has it?
There is not need to use the inode hash for purely in-memory
filesystem. The dcache tells us if an entry already exists,
so there is no need to a lru list, hash or other overhead.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists