> On Apr 8, 2018, at 14:23, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote:
> They consider dirty filesystem buffers when there's
> hardware failure preventing them from being written "a memory leak".

That's not an irrational position.  File system buffers are *not* dedicated 
memory for file system caching; they're being used for that because no one has 
a better use for them at that moment.  If an inability to flush them to disk 
meant that they suddenly became pinned memory, a large copy operation to a 
yanked USB drive could result in the system having no more allocatable memory.  
I guess in theory that they could swap them, but swapping out a file system 
buffer in hopes that sometime in the future it could be properly written 
doesn't seem very architecturally sound to me.

-- Christophe Pettus

Reply via email to