Message-ID: <459D3F4A.5070904@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:54:18 -0500
From: Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061215)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
CC: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>,
       Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs?
References: <459CEA93.4000704@tls.msk.ru> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701041242530.27899@blonde.wat.veritas.com> <459D290B.1040703@tmr.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701041653250.12920@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701041653250.12920@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1130
Lines: 27

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 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.

I suppose that one could also argue that the backing store for tmpfs
is the memory itself and thus, O_DIRECT could or should be supported.

    Thanx...

       ps
-
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/