Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:19:35 -0600 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints? |
| |
Ingo Oeser writes: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:36:24AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > Great idea. We allocate this space anyway. And we don't have to > > > care about the internals of this union, because never have to use > > > it outside the kernel ;-) > > > > > > I like it. ext2fs does the same, so there should be no VFS > > > hassles involved. Al? > > > > We should get ext2 and friends to move the sucker _out_ of struct inode. > > As it is, sizeof(struct inode) is way too large. This is 2.5 stuff, but > > it really has to be done. More filesystems adding stuff into the union > > is a Bad Thing(tm). If you want to allocates space - allocate if yourself; > > ->clear_inode() is the right place for freeing it. > > You need an inode anyway. So why not using the space in it? tmpfs > would only use sizeof(*inode.u)-sizeof(struct shmem_inode_info) for > this kind of symlinks. > > Last time we suggested this, people ended up with some OS trying > it and getting worse performance. > > Why? You need to allocate the VFS-inode (vnode in other OSs) and > the on-disk-inode anyway at the same time. You get better > performance and less fragmentation, if you allocate them both > together[1].
We want to take out that union because it sucks for virtual filesystems. Besides, it's ugly.
Regards,
Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |