On 01.05.2014 22:02, David Holland wrote: > > > I don't think that's necessary. For vnodes belonging to virtual > > > objects, there's very little to be gained by counting them under > > > maxvnodes or cycling them "out of memory". The actual underlying > > > objects can't go away and the vnode itself is just a fairly small > > > administrative structure.
Maybe it is not to place. procfs' objects can go away. > > > > Sounds reasonable -- but we are not at a point to make this decision. > > I think we are; we aren't at the point to *do* it, but knowing more or > less where we want to go I think we can make the design decision.