"J. Bruce Fields" <bfie...@fieldses.org> 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 relatively. Thanks. >> If nfs=2, try to make stable FH and limit some operations >> >> (option name doesn't matter here.) >> >> Does this work fine? -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirof...@mail.parknet.co.jp> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
