[PATCH] shmem: restore superblock info
To improve shmem scalability, we allowed tmpfs instances which don't need
their blocks or inodes limited not to count them, and not to allocate any
sbinfo. Which was okay when the only use for the sbinfo was accounting
blocks and inodes; but since then a couple of unrelated projects extending
tmpfs want to store other data in the sbinfo. Whether either extension
reaches mainline is beside the point: I'm guilty of a bad design decision,
and should restore sbinfo to make any such future extensions easier.
So, once again allocate a shmem_sb_info for every shmem/tmpfs instance, and
now let max_blocks 0 indicate unlimited blocks, and max_inodes 0 unlimited
inodes. Brent Casavant verified (many months ago) that this does not
perceptibly impact the scalability (since the unlimited sbinfo cacheline is
repeatedly accessed but only once dirtied).
And merge shmem_set_size into its sole caller shmem_remount_fs.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/tmpfs.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/tmpfs.txt
index 417e309..0d783c5 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/tmpfs.txt
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/tmpfs.txt
@@ -71,8 +71,8 @@
to limit this tmpfs instance to that percentage of your physical RAM:
the default, when neither size nor nr_blocks is specified, is size=50%
-If both nr_blocks (or size) and nr_inodes are set to 0, neither blocks
-nor inodes will be limited in that instance. It is generally unwise to
+If nr_blocks=0 (or size=0), blocks will not be limited in that instance;
+if nr_inodes=0, inodes will not be limited. It is generally unwise to
mount with such options, since it allows any user with write access to
use up all the memory on the machine; but enhances the scalability of
that instance in a system with many cpus making intensive use of it.
@@ -97,4 +97,4 @@
Author:
Christoph Rohland <cr@sap.com>, 1.12.01
Updated:
- Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>, 01 September 2004
+ Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>, 13 March 2005