xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/5] repair: don't cache large blkmap allocations

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] repair: don't cache large blkmap allocations
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:22:33 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20111010001400.GO3159@dastard>
References: <1318201910-11144-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1318201910-11144-5-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111009234809.GB13527@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111010001400.GO3159@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:14:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > okay.
> 
> But not unreasonable for a filesystem full of torrents ;)

I'm just wondering if it's still the right memory / overhead tradeoff
at that point.

> 
> > (If only we had a non-sucky threaded memory allocator in userspace..)
> 
> Perhaps we should look at the talloc code from ccan?

I'm not sure the interface is compatible enough with the kernel style
allocator we use in libxfs.  Except for that it's probably worth
taking a look.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>