Re: [PATCH 3/3] [RFC] tmpfs: Add FALLOC_FL_MARK_VOLATILE/UNMARK_VOLATILEhandlers

[John Stultz]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/