| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/5] repair: fix some valgrind reported errors on i686, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs: revert to using a kthread for AIL pushing, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] repair: don't cache large blkmap allocations, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Mutual Benefit, Ma Guang Lu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |