Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:09:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
cc: Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs?
In-Reply-To: <459D290B.1040703@tmr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701041653250.12920@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
References: <459CEA93.4000704@tls.msk.ru> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701041242530.27899@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
 <459D290B.1040703@tmr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 924
Lines: 20

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 
> In many cases the use of O_DIRECT is purely to avoid impact on cache used by
> other applications. An application which writes a large quantity of data will
> have less impact on other applications by using O_DIRECT, assuming that the
> data will not be read from cache due to application pattern or the data being
> much larger than physical memory.

I see that as a good argument _not_ to allow O_DIRECT on tmpfs,
which inevitably impacts cache, even if O_DIRECT were requested.

But I'd also expect any app requesting O_DIRECT in that way, as a caring
citizen, to fall back to going without O_DIRECT when it's not supported.

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/