From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:04:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 08/10] shmem: inode defragmentation support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20070518181040.465335396@sgi.com> <20070518181120.477184338@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, dgc@sgi.com, Hugh Dickins List-ID: On Fri, 18 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > 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). Ahh... Okay so shmem inodes are not defraggable. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org