Re: [PATCH] mm: strictlimit feature -v3

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Maxim Patlasov
<MPatlasov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[snipped]

>> If I'm right in the above, then removing NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP would be a nice
>> followup patch.
>
> I'd rather introduce the notion of trusted fuse filesystem. If system
> administrator believe given fuse fs "trusted", it works w/o
> strictlimit, but fuse daemon is supposed to notify the kernel
> explicitly about threads related to processing writeback. The kernel
> would raise a per-task flag for those threads. And, calculating
> nr_dirty in balance_dirty_pages, we'd add NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP for all,
> excepting tasks with the flag set.  This is very simple and will work
> perfectly.

Yes, doing a trusted mode for fuse is a good idea, I think.  And it
should have a new filesystem type (can't think of a good name though,
"fusetrusted" is a bit too long).

Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/