>    > (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.


.mrg.