[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FD63A55.3090505@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:35:01 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Andrea Righi <andrea@...terlinux.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Taras Glek <tgek@...illa.com>, Mike Hommey <mh@...ndium.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] [RFC] tmpfs: Add FALLOC_FL_MARK_VOLATILE/UNMARK_VOLATILE
handlers
On 06/10/2012 02:47 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 11:45 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>
>> I *think* ideally, the pages in a volatile range should be similar to
>> non-dirty file-backed pages. There is a cost to restore them, but
>> freeing them is very cheap. The trick is that volatile ranges introduces
>
> Easier to mark them dirty.
>
>> a new relationship between pages. Since the neighboring virtual pages in
>> a volatile range are in effect tied together, purging one effectively
>> ruins the value of keeping the others, regardless of which zone they are
>> physically.
>
> Then the volatile ->writepage function can zap the whole
> object.
>
What about the concern that if we don't have swap, we'll not call
writepage on tmpfs files?
thanks
-john
--
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