Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] fat: allocate persistent inode numbers
From: OGAWA Hirofumi
Date: Thu Sep 13 2012 - 08:17:36 EST
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> Grepping around... Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt mentions a
>> >> vfs_cache_pressure parameter.
>> >> Yeah. And dirty hack will be possible to adjust sb->s_shrink.batch.
>> > I am worrying if it could lead to OOM condition on embedded
>> > system(short memory(DRAM) and support 3TB HDD disk of big size.)
>> > Please let me know if any issues or queries.
>> So, now I think stable inode number may be useful if there are users of
>> it. And I guess those functionality is no collisions with -mm. And I
>> suppose we can add two modes for "nfs" option (e.g. nfs=1 and nfs=2).
>> If nfs=1, works like current -mm without no limited operations.
> Apologies, I haven't been following the conversation carefully: remind
> me what "works like current -mm" means?
Current -mm means the best-effort work only if inode cache is not
evicted. I.e. if there is no inode cache anymore on server, server
would return ESTALE. So I guess the behavior would not be stable
>> If nfs=2, try to make stable FH and limit some operations
>> (option name doesn't matter here.)
>> Does this work fine?
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/