On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So we certainly *could* make ramfs/tmpfs claim they do dirty accounting, > but just having a no-op writeback. Without that, they'd need something > really special in the file time updates.
What we might reasonably choose to end up doing there (in 2.6.25) is sending tmpfs etc. through the extra faulting for linked files, but skipping it as at present for unlinked files i.e. shared memory would continue to skip the extra faults, shared memory being the case we really wanted to avoid the overhead on when dirty page accounting came in. > Personally, I don't really see anybody really caring one way or the other, > but who knows.. I care a bit, because I don't like to feel that tmpfs is now left saddled with the bug that every filesystem has had for years before. I'll need to compare the small performance cost of fixing it against the unease of leaving it alone. Hugh -- 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/
