From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: clearcache (Was: Re: [git pull] vfs pile 1) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:00:39 -0500 Message-ID: <20110113220039.GF31800@thunk.org> References: <20110113053554.GQ19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20110113172557.c016ec51.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20110113085547.GA7414@infradead.org> <20110113214239.1b23b523.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Dan Magenheimer , Al Viro , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110113214239.1b23b523.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:42:39PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > "I didn't really follow the discussion at Kernel Summit, but there seemed > to be some question as to whether the cleancache stuff will be merged or > not. It missed 2.6.37 (obviously), but my question now is do I keep in > in linux-next in the hope that it will be merged in 2.6.38? Or is that > not going to happen?" The real problem is I don't think anyone is really paying attention to cleancache. Dan, something that might be useful to drive interest would be a demonstration of this improves performance on, say, a netbook using cleancache and zram, and how it is better than just using zram directly as a swap device. With maybe some numbers? That might get some interest from the community desktop distributions... - Ted