Subject: re: free space (was /dev) on tmpfs problem
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: matthew green <email@example.com>
Date: 11/15/2005 15:02:39
> > (linux tmpfs also uses virtually no extra ram due to using
> > other kernel cache objects (ie, vnode/inode/directory) rather
> > than keeping track of them with private structure. i wonder
> > if those ideas could be adapted for our tmpfs?)
> i guess it just means linux have to use extra ram for
> mandated namecache (dcache) otherwise.
> do we currently duplicate his data? it seems no matter where
> it goes, not duplicating data should save memory as well as
> potentially avoid stale-data use (though this really would
> indicate a bug somewhere i think?)
i don't understand what you mean.
what's "his data"? how you can see stale-data?
i just mean that when the same info is duplicated there can be
the possibilility of one copy of it being stale. eg, the way
read/write vs. mmap used to have problems.