[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <790b3e0b-14b6-44da-9f4c-a4315b58e2c5@default>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 07:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
To: Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: Cleancache and shared filesystems
> From: Joel Becker [mailto:jlbec@...lplan.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 5:34 PM
> To: Steven Whitehouse
> Cc: Dan Magenheimer; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Sunil Mushran
> Subject: Re: Cleancache and shared filesystems
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 05:19:39PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > + if (ls->ls_ops == &gfs2_dlm_ops) {
> > + if (gfs2_uuid_valid(sb->s_uuid))
> > + cleancache_init_shared_fs(sb->s_uuid, sb);
> > + } else {
> > + cleancache_init_fs(sb);
> > + }
>
> Hey Dan,
> Steven makes a good point here. ocfs2 could also take advantage
> of local filesystem behavior when running in local mode.
Hi Joel --
I guess the semantics need to be more clearly defined
(or perhaps changed if the shared-fs community wants),
but if cleancache_init_shared_fs is called only by
a single node, cleancache still enables all the same
functionality** as cleancache_init_fs.
I'm not sure I fully understand the semantics of
local mode though, so please clarify if you think
I am wrong or misunderstanding your point.
Thanks,
Dan
---
Thanks... for the memory!
I really could use more / my throughput's on the floor
The balloon is flat / my swap disk's fat / I've OOM's in store
Overcommitted so much
(with apologies to Bob Hope)
--
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