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

[Jan Engelhardt]

On May 18 2007 11:10, clameter@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>Index: slub/mm/shmem.c
>===================================================================
>--- slub.orig/mm/shmem.c	2007-05-18 00:54:30.000000000 -0700
>+++ slub/mm/shmem.c	2007-05-18 01:02:26.000000000 -0700

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).

>@@ -2337,11 +2337,22 @@ static void init_once(void *foo, struct 
> #endif
> }
> 
>+static void *shmem_get_inodes(struct kmem_cache *s, int nr, void **v)
>+{
>+	return fs_get_inodes(s, nr, v,
>+			offsetof(struct shmem_inode_info, vfs_inode));
>+}
>+
>+static struct kmem_cache_ops shmem_kmem_cache_ops = {
>+	.get = shmem_get_inodes,
>+	.kick = kick_inodes
>+};
>+
> static int init_inodecache(void)
> {
> 	shmem_inode_cachep = kmem_cache_create("shmem_inode_cache",
> 				sizeof(struct shmem_inode_info),
>-				0, 0, init_once, NULL);
>+				0, 0, init_once, &shmem_kmem_cache_ops);
> 	if (shmem_inode_cachep == NULL)
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 	return 0;
>
>-- 
>-
>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/
>

	Jan
-- 
-
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/