[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191227113732.GB442424@chrisdown.name>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:37:32 +0000
From: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To: "zhengbin (A)" <zhengbin13@...wei.com>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: inode: Recycle inodenum from volatile inode slabs
zhengbin (A) writes:
>How about tmpfs and hugetlbfs use their own get_next_ino? like
>
>static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, tmpfs_last_ino),
>
>which can reduce the risk of 32 bit wraparound further.
This won't help by itself, because in the case presented the wraparound almost
solely comes from shmem alone.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists