Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 20:13:06 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r312588 - head/sys/mips/conf Message-ID: <20170121181306.GX2349@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <1485021054.34897.180.camel@freebsd.org> References: <201701210908.v0L98SQp033735@repo.freebsd.org> <20170121114120.GU2349@kib.kiev.ua> <1485021054.34897.180.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:50:54AM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Sat, 2017-01-21 at 13:41 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 09:08:28AM +0000, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > > > > +options TMPFS #Efficient memory > > > filesystem > > Is the word 'efficient' copied from somewhere ? Yes, I see it in > > sys/conf/NOTES. I do not see what useful meaning the word has there, > > applied to the tmpfs. In my opinion, it should be removed from > > comments. > > > > Is it not more efficient than the alternatives based on md(4)? If UFS on a swap-backed md(4) is configured without SU and with trim enabled, then it should be very similar to tmpfs. Even more similar if the UFS mount is sync. Except in the case when the files from such mount are mmaped, in which case UFS inherently performs double-copy.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170121181306.GX2349>