On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2003, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > What does tmpfs have to do with ram size? Its swappable. This
> > _might_ be useful for ramfs but for tmpfs, IMHO, its not a good
> > idea.
>
> I agree and I think if you add this option it should adjust to a
> percentage of (ram + swap). With this it would be a really nice
> improvement.
> I even had patches for this but to do it efficently you would need to
> add some hooks to swapon and swapoff.
You surprise me, Christoph, I'd expected you to approve of CaT's.
If tmpfs already defaulted to 50% of ram+swap, then I'd agree
with you. But it has all along been in terms of RAM, so I think
it's better to continue in that way. (We could add options to
allow +swap in too, but I'm not terribly interested.)
If people really wanted their tmpfs pages to go out to disk, I think
they'd be choosing a more sophisticated filesystem to manage that:
swap is a vital overflow area for tmpfs, not its home.
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 22:00:13 EST