[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1403690595.20275.14.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:03:15 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Thomas Knauth <thomas.knauth@....de>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Maksym Planeta <mcsim.planeta@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysctl: Add a feature to drop caches selectively
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 10:25 +0200, Thomas Knauth wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> wrote:
> > Plus some explanations WRT why proc-based interface and what would be
> > the alternatives, what if tomorrow we want to extend the functionality
> > and drop caches only for certain file range, is this only for regular
> > files or also for directories, why posix_fadvice(DONTNEED) is not
> > sufficient.
>
> I suggested the idea originally. Let me address each of your questions in turn:
I'd also be interested to see some analysis about path-based interface
vs. file descriptor-base interface. What are cons and pros. E.g. if my
path is a symlink, with path-based interface it is not obvious whether I
drop caches for the symlink itself or caches of the target.
Note, if there are no answers, fine with me, I am asking just out of
curiosity.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
--
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