On 07/24/2010 12:17 AM, Dan Magenheimer wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:58:03AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote: >>>> CHRISTOPH AND ANDREW, if you disagree and your concerns have >>>> not been resolved, please speak up. >> >> Hi Christoph -- >> >> Thanks very much for the quick (instantaneous?) reply! >> >>> Anything that need modification of a normal non-shared fs is utterly >>> broken and you'll get a clear NAK, so the propsal before is a good >>> one. >> >> No, the per-fs opt-in is very sensible; and its design is >> very minimal. > > Not to belabor the point, but maybe the right way to think about > this is: > > Cleancache is a new optional feature provided by the VFS layer > that potentially dramatically increases page cache effectiveness > for many workloads in many environments at a negligible cost. > > Filesystems that are well-behaved and conform to certain restrictions > can utilize cleancache simply by making a call to cleancache_init_fs > at mount time. Unusual, misbehaving, or poorly layered filesystems > must either add additional hooks and/or undergo extensive additional > testing... or should just not enable the optional cleancache. OK, So I maintain a filesystem in Kernel. How do I know if my FS is not "Unusual, misbehaving, or poorly layered" Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>