| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 03/12] repair: allocate and free extent records individually |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:21:40 +1100 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20111202174741.504430987@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20111202174619.179530033@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111202174741.504430987@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:46:22PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Instead of allocating inode records in chunks and keeping a freelist of them > which gets released to the system memory allocator in one go use plain malloc > and free for them. The freelist just means adding a global lock instead > of relying on malloc and free which could be implemented lockless. In > addition smart allocators like tcmalloc have far less overhead than our > chunk and linked list. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Same context as the last patch - seems much better to rely on malloc to get this right. Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 02/12] repair: allocate and free inode records individually, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 04/12] xfsprogs: allow linking against libtcmalloc, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 03/12] repair: allocate and free extent records individually, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 09/12] repair: kill check_inode_block, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |