Re: [patch 08/10] shmem: inode defragmentation support

On Fri, 18 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> Do we need *this*? (compare procfs)
> 
> I believe that shmfs's inodes remain "more" in memory than those of
> procfs. That is, procfs ones can find their way out (we can regenerate
> it), while shmfs/tmpfs/ramfs/etc. should not do that (we'd lose the
> file).

Ahh... Okay so shmem inodes are not defraggable.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [patch 00/10] Slab defragmentation V2
    • From: [email protected]
  • [patch 08/10] shmem: inode defragmentation support
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: [patch 08/10] shmem: inode defragmentation support
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 10/10] ext2 ext3 ext4: support inode slab defragmentation
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Misc: phantom, move to unlocked_ioctl
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 08/10] shmem: inode defragmentation support
• Next by thread: [patch 02/10] SLUB: slab defragmentation and kmem_cache_vacate
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]